Oral
Answers to
Questions

Culture, Media and Sport

The Secretary of State was asked—

Physical Activity: Lower-income Families

Chi Onwurah: What steps her Department has taken to reduce barriers to physical activity in lower-income families.

Lucy Frazer: Getting people active is absolutely vital, particularly those who are not active at the moment, which will include those from low-income families. That is why we have a sport strategy to get 3.5 million people more active. It is why we are investing around £400 million in grassroots sports facilities up and down the country, including £4 million in Newcastle upon Tyne Central. We are ensuring that that money is targeted particularly on the most deprived neighbourhoods.

Chi Onwurah: I hope the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating Newcastle United women on their promotion to the championship. This season, they have helped inspire more than 300 young girls to take part in Newcastle United Foundation’s Premier League Kicks sessions, but with a third of young people in Newcastle inactive and our childhood obesity rates the highest in the region and among the highest in the country, we cannot leave it all to the foundation. How frequently does the Secretary of State meet the Department for Education to ensure that disadvantaged young people have access to sporting opportunities in schools? Specifically, what comparison has she made between sporting facilities in the state and private school sectors?

Lucy Frazer: This is a really important area, and I congratulate the Newcastle United women on their success and, indeed, all women taking part in sport. That is why, through the future Lionesses fund, we have invested £30 million for 30 pitches across the country to make sure that women get more activity and more opportunities to take part in sport. The specific question was about engagement with the Department for Education, which I have regularly. In fact, it sits on the taskforce I was talking about to get more people active, as do other Departments. We all need to work together to  make sure we get more sport in school, more people active and equal opportunities for young girls in schools across the country.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Thangam Debbonaire: More than 1 million girls who considered themselves sporty while at primary school drop out of sport as teenagers. I was one of those girls, and I did not do any sport from puberty until my late 40s, when I discovered running. This weekend, I will be running my second London marathon in aid of Bristol Refugee Rights—feel free to donate. On this Government’s watch, inequality between girls and boys on physical activity has got worse, with 22% fewer girls than boys taking part in team sports. I do not want any tepid words about things the Secretary of State says she is committed to. We have 860,000 girls missing out on the joy of physical activity—why?

Lucy Frazer: I hope the shadow Secretary of State does very well on Sunday, and I wish her the best of luck. I am absolutely committed—these are not just warm words—to ensuring that more girls and women get involved in sport. I say that they are not just warm words because we have a plethora of policies already in play on this issue, whether that is: investing in football and working with Karen Carney on her women’s football review; building pitches to ensure that girls and women have priority access to sport; the £400 million for multi-sport facilities, which goes across the country; or the taskforce that I talked about, which will get 1 million children more active. We are particularly prioritising people who are inactive at the moment, which unfortunately does include girls.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi to ask question 3. [Interruption.] Will the Secretary of State answer the question and allow the shadow Minister to come in?

Pete Wishart: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Can you sit down, please? Question 2 has been withdrawn. We are now at question 3.

Music Industry: Ticket Prices

Tan Dhesi: What discussions her Department has had with the music industry on taking steps to help reduce ticket prices.

Julia Lopez: Our Department speaks regularly to industry stakeholders about how to make sure that live music continues to reach a wide range of audiences. Ultimately, ticket pricing strategies are a matter for event organisers and ticketing platforms, but they have to comply with the relevant laws to ensure price transparency, allowing consumers to make a fair and informed decision.

Tan Dhesi: Whether it is on music or other entertainment, this Government have consistently failed to act in the interest of fans when it comes to ticket touting. Last year,  they rejected the recommendations and warnings of the Competition and Markets Authority to strengthen legislation and protect consumers from illegal reselling practices in the secondary ticketing market. Will the Minister concede that the problem has got much worse for fans? When will the Government finally put a stop to that?

Julia Lopez: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government brought in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which was strengthened by the Digital Economy Act 2017, which brought in anti-bots regulation that dealt with some of those secondary ticketing issues. It is a tricky problem to solve. We are trying to do so through those regulations, but if there is more that we can do, we will look into that.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Pete Wishart: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member complained about the other question, but it is not my fault that no Government Members have stood to ask a supplementary question. I keep a political balance, and I am not going to break that for him. I call Thangam Debbonaire.

Thangam Debbonaire: Ticket touts are a scourge on our live music industry. Secondary ticketing websites inflate prices and pocket the profits, which makes cultural and sporting events unaffordable for many families and damages the relationship between fans, artists and venues. While the Government fail to act, Labour has committed to tackling soaring ticketing prices on the secondary market. Surely the Minister agrees that only Labour will put fans back at the heart of music and cultural events.

Julia Lopez: Surely the hon. Member would not expect me to agree with such a ludicrous statement. We brought in laws and we have anti-bot regulations, and we have had ticket touts arrested for their activities. I know that Labour has brought forward its own proposal—effectively a price cap on resale—which we do not think is workable. We have seen that in Ireland, and it simply increases fraudulent activity; it does not deliver for fans. We simply do not believe that what she is proposing will make any difference.

Heritage Sector: Net Zero

Mary Glindon: What steps her Department is taking to help the heritage sector reach net zero.

Julia Lopez: Earlier this year, we published a review of the barriers faced by owners of historic homes to reducing their energy consumption. It made a number of commitments across planning, skills and finance to assist the heritage sector on its journey to net zero, including consulting on the role of local listed building consent orders to drive change at the local level.

Mary Glindon: In 2022, North Tyneside’s world heritage site Segedunum was successful in accessing funds through the museums estate and development fund for urgent  repairs. That will contribute to reducing the site’s carbon footprint. Currently, other than the Heritage Fund and potential regional government funding, there are no other sources of funding that would help cultural and heritage sites meet climate change targets. What are the Government doing directly to ensure that heritage sites can be resilient against climate change and have sustainable futures?

Julia Lopez: I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. She talked about one of the substantial funds that we have to help repair and restore museums, heritage sites and other activities. I am glad that that is making a big difference in her constituency. We have been looking into the important area of how historic buildings can reduce their energy consumption. It is obviously difficult, since 2% of buildings in the UK are listed. We want to help them to reduce their energy consumption, which is a particular challenge for owners of historic homes. Historic England has guidance to help museums, and we will look at what more we can do.

Caroline Dinenage: When it comes to valuable heritage assets, I am really concerned about those housed in the grounds of our many military estates which are not bound by any of the obligations to maintain and care for them. In many cases, the Ministry of Defence and others are pursuing a policy of managed decline, which is allowing those valuable heritage assets to rot under our very noses. May I encourage the Minister—in fact, the Secretary of State—to speak with Ministers in the Ministry of Defence to challenge that policy and see what can be done to address it? I give her advance warning that I am keen to look at that as part of a Select Committee inquiry.

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important point. It is something that we support when an asset is in the community rather than on the existing military estate. I recently visited the battle of Britain bunker at RAF Uxbridge, where there has been an amazing partnership with the local council. She raised an issue specifically about MOD sites that are still in use, which we shall be very happy to look into for her.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Lilian Greenwood: The Heritage Alliance estimates in its refreshed manifesto that the UK needs to double the number of conservation-skilled retrofit workers if we are to meet our net zero targets by 2050. Our built environment is at risk, yet the Government have stalled on training and have no plan to upskill the next generation. Labour will change the apprenticeship levy, making it more flexible to ensure that workers have the skills they need for the future. What is the Minister doing to meet the workforce challenge of retrofitting our heritage buildings?

Julia Lopez: Our Department has a huge number of initiatives under way to help people to deal with skills shortages, not just in the heritage sector but in the creative industries. The Secretary of State and I were discussing that with the Creative Industries Council just this week. One of the challenges that we face is the dynamism of the workforce and the need to ensure that it has the specific skills of the kind that the hon. Lady  mentioned. We are looking at bootcamps and T-levels, which are much more practical vocational skills. I am happy to look into and discuss with the noble Lord Parkinson what more we can do with the heritage sector.

Torquay United Football Club

Kevin Foster: What recent discussions she has had with the National League on the financial sustainability of Torquay United Football Club.

Stuart Andrew: I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the financial issues facing Torquay United. I urge all parties to find a swift solution to this distressing situation. The Government are seeking to support the professional game through the Football Governance Bill, which will establish an independent football regulator.

Kevin Foster: As the Minister knows, recent weeks have been difficult for Torquay United fans, with the club entering into administration following years of fans struggling to get answers from the owner, and a completely flawed plan for a new stadium, which made no progress whatsoever. What role will preventing the circumstances that have dragged down Torquay United and other clubs play in future developments in how the game is governed?

Stuart Andrew: I agree that meaningful engagement with fans is crucial. I want to put on record my thanks to the Torquay United Supporters Trust for its action to support the club and the fans. I share the concerns about the financial situation right across the game. That is exactly why the Bill will give powers to the regulator, which will be able to monitor and enforce financial regulation and deal with club ownership, fan engagement and club heritage issues, to ensure that clubs are protected for the very fans who are their bedrock.

Sports Facilities: Funding

Virginia Crosbie: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme in funding new sports facilities.

Andy Carter: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme in funding new sports facilities.

Lucy Frazer: Between 2021 and 2025, the Government have committed more than £325 million to grassroots sports sites across the whole of the UK. That is part of our commitment to ensure every community has the facilities it needs. So far, almost 2,400 sites have been supported, creating more opportunities for people of all backgrounds across the country to get active.

Virginia Crosbie: Thanks to the UK Government’s multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, almost £100,000 has been invested across Anglesey to improve sports  facilities at Holyhead Hotspur, Plas Arthur in Llangefni, Tŷ Croes and Bodedern. Sport helps families across Ynys Môn be more active, healthier and happier. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking Ynys Môn gymnastics club, Barton Dance and Drama Academy, Ynys Môn Celts basketball club and all those working hard to make my summer activities fair at the Canolfan Holyhead on 8 June a success?

Lucy Frazer: It is fantastic to hear about the community events taking place in the hon. Friend’s constituency. I am delighted that she has put together such an active and exciting event, and I wish her all the best on 8 June. Such events bring communities together. I wish her and everybody a wonderful time.

Andy Carter: Cromwell Athletic, who play at Mary Ann Meadows in my constituency, have had to cancel almost 70% of their grass pitch games this season because conditions have made the ground simply unplayable. The pitch improvement programme shows that we need around eight 3G pitches in Warrington to cope with demand. Could my right hon. Friend set out what support is available to clubs with significant junior membership? I invite her back to Warrington to see some of the teams who are struggling to access 3G pitches, to talk about how we can help them.

Lucy Frazer: Through our investment via the Football Foundation in England, we are actively supporting teams such as Cromwell Athletic up and down the country to get new artificial grass pitches. We funded the goalposts at Barrow Hall Primary School and put in a new artificial grass pitch at Cardinal Newman Catholic High School. It was a pleasure to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss this issue further.

National Symbols: Regulation

Andrew Rosindell: If she will make an assessment of the potential merits of bringing forward legislative proposals to regulate the use of national symbols by commercial and other entities.

Stuart Andrew: The correct use of many national symbols, such as royal names, state emblems, the royal arms and the Government coat of arms, is already subject to Government regulation.

Andrew Rosindell: I think many people would be quite angered by the way certain national organisations have tried to change our national flags, the cross of St George and the Union Jack. Is it not time that we protected and cherished our national symbols by appointing a Minister of the Crown from the Cabinet Office to oversee that? Will the Minister also look at the Union Flag Bill of 2008, which would enshrine in legislation the protection of our cherished national flag?

Stuart Andrew: The Union Jack should be a unifying symbol for the whole country. It has looked the way it has for the past several hundred years and I see no point in messing around with it. I am not sure that we need legislation; we just need some common sense.

Kevin Brennan: Would Ministers be equally keen to prevent organisations, such as political parties, using images of His Majesty the King in their propaganda?

Stuart Andrew: I do not know how to answer that question, if I am honest! [Laughter.] Our party has always been proud to use the Union Jack, because we are a proud Unionist party, and we will always be proud to support the royal family.

Charities and Voluntary Organisations

Ian Lavery: What steps her Department is taking to support charities and voluntary organisations in the context of increases in the cost of living.

Stuart Andrew: The Government are investing millions to support charities across England with cost of living pressures, and that includes the Community Organisations Cost of Living Fund, which is awarding critical support to frontline services.

Ian Lavery: What does it say about the state of the nation when, during the worst cost of living crisis in living memory, charities and voluntary organisations such as Calmer Therapy in the Wansbeck constituency are struggling simply to make ends meet? Like many other charities, Calmer Therapy is having to do more with less. It is facing more pressures and continued pressures, with crumbling buildings and excessive bills. What conversations has the Minister had with the Chancellor about plans to support charities and those who are desperately relying on them to survive?

Stuart Andrew: I want to put on record my thanks to the charities up and down the country that have done some incredible work over some of the most challenging times. I recognise that when costs are rising and donations are falling, demand for their services often increases. That is why I had conversations with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and why we secured a significant package of £100 million to support those charities. It was welcomed by the sector. I am grateful to the National Lottery Community Fund for helping us to get that money out as quickly as possible to so many charities around the country.

Footballers: Risk of Dementia

Duncan Baker: What recent discussions she has had with representatives of football clubs and associations on ensuring the wellbeing of football players, in the context of their increased risk of dementia.

Stuart Andrew: I have discussed the issue of dementia with the Professional Footballers’ Association, specifically around the Premier League’s promise to allocate funding towards the new brain health fund for football players impacted by dementia. I am pleased that the fund was launched in September last year, and I will be writing to the PFA shortly to seek its assurances on the current workings of the fund and how the PFA is engaging with former players.

Duncan Baker: My constituent is the former Celtic, Chelsea, Blackburn and, more importantly, Norwich City football legend, Chris Sutton. He has recently brought to my attention the very distressing fact that former professional footballers are four times more likely to die of CTE—chronic traumatic encephalopathy—dementia than the wider population due to repeated head impacts. Chris is just one of a group of former players who are championing these issues and pushing for better provisions to support the wellbeing of ex-players and their families. Can the Minister reassure me that the football industry will create a properly financed dementia fund to help players, and of course their widows, who are affected by the CTE dementia scandal?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend is right to raise this incredibly important issue, and I want to record my thanks to Chris Sutton and all those involved in this important work. We welcome the practical support that those involved in sports give former players in these circumstances. The PFA and Premier League’s brain health fund has an initial amount of £1 million in financial support for former players and their families, to improve their quality of life. The fund will remain in place until the PFA and the Premier League establish a charity that will involve a great many football stakeholders so we can provide a much longer-term support vehicle. I can reassure him that I take this area of work incredibly seriously and will continue to put pressure on those involved.

Kirsten Oswald: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer and hope we will hear more in that regard.
The number of children who are vaping continues to rise at an alarming rate. Statistics from 2022 show that current use—within the last 30 days—among 15-year-olds was 25%, but the percentage will obviously be significantly higher now. We know about some of the harms to which vaping leads, which should cause us grave concern, but we certainly do not know about all of them. In that context, does the Minister think it is a good thing that the strips of football clubs such as Blackburn Rovers are sponsored by vaping companies? If not, will he join me in seeking to change that?

Stuart Andrew: I know that there have been many discussions about sponsorship within various sporting bodies. It is for the individual clubs and the football authorities themselves to set guidelines of that kind, but the hon. Lady has raised an interesting point and, if she will allow me, I will give it further consideration.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Stephanie Peacock: Everyone deserves to feel safe playing the sport that they love. In the context of, sadly, too many former professional players suffering from dementia, what steps is the Department taking to ensure that sports governing bodies have the guidance they need to ensure the safety of professional players?

Stuart Andrew: The hon. Lady has raised an important point, as have other Members. The Government are leading work on concussion in particular. We have worked with stakeholders and developed the first guidelines to  be distributed to the grassroots, which have also aided professional sports. The evaluation of this is ongoing and will be invaluable in helping us to improve sport-related education and health. We have also convened a sports concussion research group to identify the questions that still need answering, as well as an innovation and technology panel, whose members are looking at the practical, technical solutions that will aid safety and mitigate concussion. However, as I have said, this is an incredibly important area and one on which we will focus.

Gambling Operators Levy

Liz Twist: What her planned timetable is for responding to the consultation on the statutory levy on gambling operators.

Stuart Andrew: The statutory levy represents a generational change in funding arrangements, and we have to consider properly the evidence provided during the consultation. We will publish a response setting out our final decision soon, but we remain on track to introduce the levy via secondary legislation this summer.

Liz Twist: It has been months since the consultation closed, with no response, and about 10 other consultations relating to the White Paper are also awaiting a response. Is the Minister trying to kick change into the long grass, and if not, will he please confirm when the responses will be published?

Stuart Andrew: I reject that accusation. There are 62 proposals in the White Paper, half of which will be finalised as a result of the consultation or are complete. A further three consultations have ended, and we are now analysing those. The levy is a priority, because we want the funds to be directed where they are needed most, on the basis of evidence, and we are working at pace to ensure that happens. I also point out that it was this Government who introduced it.

Artistic Spaces

Andrew Selous: If she will take steps with relevant stakeholders to help provide spaces for artists to create and display their work.

Julia Lopez: High-quality affordable workspaces are essential to ensuring that we can retain our finest creative talent. The Government are committed to encouraging local authorities and property owners to make spaces available for cultural activities. Arts Council England is already supporting artists’ spaces through funding and brokering partnerships. The national portfolio boasts numerous workspaces that receive revenue funding, such as Spike Island and Yorkshire Artspace, which offer space for artists to create work and gallery space for exhibiting new work.

Andrew Selous: Leighton Buzzard, Dunstable and many other parts of my constituency are blessed with an abundance of artists, painters, sculptors and others, but they have very few places where they can create their  work—they need more studio space and more workspaces —and even fewer places in which to exhibit. Providing such spaces should be essential—it aids economic activity, increases footfall and increases wellbeing—so how can we ensure that it is essential, as the Minister said, and not an afterthought? It really does matter.

Julia Lopez: I thank my hon. Friend for raising his concerns about the creative community in Leighton Buzzard—it sounds like a buzzing creative community. As I say, we support creative industries primarily through Arts Council England, which has initiatives that look at workspaces. I encourage organisations in his constituency and community to make applications for grants, because there are specific funds available.

Matt Western: Arts venues are vital to our local culture and our communities, but they are also hotbeds for new talent to display or perform their latest works, which is critical to the UK’s creative sector. Pubs are increasingly used for showing artworks as much as they are for performing music—think of pubs such as the Crown Inn back in the day, or the Hope and Anchor in Islington. That is why it is so important that we save pubs such as the Punch Bowl in Warwick, which a developer wants to convert into a house. Last year was the worst year for the closure of music venues. What is the Minister doing to stop that rate of closure?

Julia Lopez: We share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about grassroots music venues, which is why we have a specific fund set aside to help save some of the most treasured community venues. We also have the Localism Act 2011, which allows communities to designate a particular community asset of value, giving communities time to raise funds to save those kinds of assets. It is something that we are talking about a lot with music venue groups, and we are also looking at giving them help to buy the freeholds of properties so that those kinds of assets can stay within communities and remain a talent pipeline, as he suggests, for many years to come.

English Football: Financial Sustainability

Luke Evans: What recent discussions she has had with the Premier League and English Football League on the financial stability of football clubs.

Lucy Frazer: As my hon. Friend will know, the Football Governance Bill was introduced to Parliament last month, and it will help with the financial sustainability of football as a whole. I have met the Premier League, the English Football League, many stakeholders and parliamentarians to ensure that the legislation is appropriately drafted. I have met over 90 clubs and senior executives from the leagues many times.

Luke Evans: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer. We do not have to look too far across the east midlands to see that clubs such as Nottingham Forest, Derby County, Coventry City and Leicester City have found themselves in some form of difficulty, so I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce a regulator to bring some stability to the football pyramid.  However, how do we ensure that we strike a balance so that we do not strangle and over-regulate the best league in the world, the premiership?

Lucy Frazer: As my hon. Friend mentions, the Premier League is world leading. It is worth £7 billion, and we absolutely want to ensure that it stays first and world class. That is why the legislation takes a proportionate approach. It takes on board the fact that the regulator will have to work very closely with the leagues, including the Premier League. We call it an advocacy-first approach, and having worked very carefully with the team, I am very confident that the legislation takes a balanced and proportionate approach.

Dan Jarvis: Football is nothing without the fans, and the Secretary of State may recall that a while ago I mentioned to the Sport Minister the idea of a postponement promise. That was in response to a spate of fixtures that had been cancelled at very short notice. The Minister said that he would raise it with the EFL, and I understand that he did so. I am grateful for that, but I wonder whether the Secretary of State agrees that we need to keep the momentum going forward. Will she and the Minister continue to work with the EFL to come up with a solution that works for fans?

Lucy Frazer: The hon. Member is absolutely right about the importance of fans and communities to football, which is why the Government are bringing forward legislation to protect fans across the country. My junior Minister is a valued colleague who supports me and works very hard across his portfolio. I know he has raised this issue with the EFL, and I will talk to him about it.

Topical Questions

Alex Davies-Jones: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Lucy Frazer: This Government recognise just how important the arts are, which is why the Chancellor used the Budget to extend, introduce and make permanent a range of tax reliefs to drive growth and investment in our creative industries. We have provided tax reliefs worth £1 billion over the next five years for museums, galleries, theatres, orchestras, independent film productions, film studios and the visual effects industry. In addition, as Sunday draws near, I want to wish all those running and taking part in the London marathon the best of luck—in particular, the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Bristol West (Thangam Debbonaire).

Alex Davies-Jones: With Monday marking the 35th anniversary of the Hillsborough tragedy, we will always remember the 97 victims who were killed unlawfully. Does the Minister agree that, in their memory, we must take a stand against those who think it is acceptable to ridicule this disaster in order to rile up rival teams? If so, what is she doing to tackle this issue of so-called tragedy chanting?

Lucy Frazer: Tragedy chanting is absolutely abhorrent and has no place in football, or indeed in any sport. The Government fully support the football leagues and the  police in their efforts to identify and deal with the culprits. Tragedy chanting can be prosecuted as a public order offence, with guilty individuals being issued with football banning orders preventing them from attending matches in the future.

Andrew Rosindell: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the amazing success of Romford football club, which has now got through to the FA vase final at Wembley on 11 May? Given the proud Essex town that Romford is, does she agree that BBC Essex and the regional TV and radio channels really should promote that in their broadcasting, instead of saying that we are not Essex? Does she agree that we should be given that prominence?

Lucy Frazer: First, I extend my congratulations to Romford football club on reaching the final of the FA vase—it is a wonderful achievement and I wish the team the best of luck at Wembley. On the issue of BBC Essex, as my hon. Friend will know, the BBC is operationally and editorially independent of the Government, but I know that my hon. Friend has raised his concerns directly with the BBC, and I am sure that it will get back to him.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesman, John Nicolson.

John Nicolson: Since we last met, the media regulator Ofcom has again reprimanded GB News for breaching impartiality rules. Ofcom says that news programmes should not be presented by politicians. The Tory Benches host a plethora of Ofcom rule-breaching MPs who leave this place to freelance as pretendy news presenters on a channel that spreads conspiracy theories and disinformation, and that undermines Ofcom. I am on the side of journalism, not disinformation. Does the Minister agree with me that GB News should drop the propaganda and obey the regulator?

Lucy Frazer: I am in favour of media plurality; I think it is important that there are channels for everybody to watch, and GB News is a very popular outlet. I think that the person to regulate GB News is Ofcom, not those on the shadow Benches.

Kieran Mullan: Crewe Amateur Musicals Society opens what I am sure will be a fantastic production of “Kinky Boots” at Crewe Lyceum this evening, but I am concerned that Arts Council funding does not do enough to support existing groups and activities. As well as joining me in wishing the Crewe Amateur Musicals Society good luck this evening, can my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss Arts Council funding?

Julia Lopez: I wish the Crewe Amateur Musicals Society the very best of luck with their performance. We channel a very large amount of money to Arts Council England. With lottery funding and Government funding, that is about £444 million every year. We also have a number of tax reliefs for the performing arts. I also encourage the groups in my hon. Friend’s constituency  to apply for the latest cultural development fund round, which opened in February and supports organisations such as the one he cites.

Daniel Zeichner: Cambridge has a long-established and flourishing local music scene but, as elsewhere, times are hard. The Music Venue Trust recently reported that, nationally, there have been 67 emergency cases for its experts so far in 2024. With soaring maintenance and operating costs, and with inflation meaning that the grassroots music sector is operating on a profit margin of just 0.2%, does the Minister accept that this is unsustainable for any business?

Julia Lopez: It has been a particularly difficult period for a number of music venues. Obviously, we went through the pandemic and then an energy crisis, and we tried to support venues through those difficult times. We are now working very closely with the Music Venue Trust, which has access to Arts Council funding that is helping it to buy the freehold of some music venues. We also have a grassroots music fund that is helping with some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman cites, and I am sure it would be happy to look into the particularly treasured venues in his constituency.

Richard Fuller: The Secretary of State will be aware of the proposal by Universal Studios for a theme park in Bedfordshire—a £10 billion investment in the country. She will also be aware of the strong local support, led by Conservative Mayor Tom Wootton, so can she assure me and other Bedfordshire MPs that she is working hard with the Treasury to get a response to that proposal, and that a Government proposal will be forthcoming before the summer?

Lucy Frazer: My hon. Friend is right to raise this very exciting opportunity for Bedfordshire, which I am pleased to have discussed with him. We are liaising closely with the Treasury, and I am also happy to continue liaising with my hon. Friend.

Patrick Grady: What discussions have the Government had, or would be willing to have, with Glasgow City Council and the Scottish Government on the prospect of Glasgow stepping in to host the 2026 Commonwealth games?

Stuart Andrew: This country is proud to have hosted the Commonwealth games twice in the past decade, most recently in Birmingham. I have had conversations with the Commonwealth Games Federation on its plans, and I know it is currently considering a host of options. I will see what it comes out with before I commit to any further engagement.

Caroline Dinenage: Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the magnificent and mighty Portsmouth football club on winning League One and securing promotion to the championship this week? Does she agree with me that Pompey’s fantastic victory demonstrates the magic of football in bringing communities together, inspiring young people and encouraging health and fitness?

Lucy Frazer: I am very pleased to congratulate Portsmouth football club on its success. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of local clubs and what they do in their communities. It is not just the match on a Saturday; it is also about what they do to encourage people to get involved in their community and to get fit and active. Going around the country, I have seen some fabulous examples of what sports clubs—not just football but rugby and cricket—do for their local areas.

Liz Twist: The Carney review revealed that women’s football has a long way to go on minimum professional standards, union representation, mental health support and more. Will Ministers give these recommendations parity with the changes needed in the men’s game?

Lucy Frazer: I am pleased to have spoken to Karen Carney on a number of occasions about her review and the importance of women’s football, and I am also pleased to take on board all her recommendations. The Government approved all the review’s recommendations, and I am pleased to chair the first implementation group, which is ensuring that the recommendations will be implemented by the Football Association and others.

Pete Wishart: Since I last raised the closure of small music venues, two a week continue to close. There is now a growing consensus within the live music sector that a £1 levy should be put on large music venues and those who are making massive profits at live events. The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is looking at this, and I have listened very carefully to the evidence. If it is recommended, will the Minister put in place a levy similar to the one in other countries across Europe?

Julia Lopez: We are very sympathetic to that concept, which has worked well in football. We are closely watching the industry discussions about the idea of a levy that would support grassroots music venues which, as we all know, are the talent pipeline for our world-leading music industry. We do not want to see them wither, so we are watching this matter closely and I have had recent discussions with relevant organisations on it.

Holly Lynch: Further to that question, and as others have said, brilliant grassroots music venues all over the country are struggling with spiralling costs. The Grayston Unity is one such venue that is crucial in not only ensuring access to music, but developing the skills pipeline for people working in that sector and, we hope, becoming the stars of tomorrow. What is the Minister doing to ensure that she understands, and reassures those venues that she gets, the spiralling costs they face?

Julia Lopez: As I have said, we have a number of initiatives under way. Arts Council funding is supporting the Music Venue Trust in relation to owning freeholds of properties and we have our supporting grassroots music fund, which has been topped up recently because of some of the issues cited by the hon. Lady. We want to try to help music venues through these difficult times, because we believe they are so valuable, not only to the  talent pipeline, but in giving communities access to local music and performing opportunities. We hope that these venues will continue long into the future.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. If we have very brief questions and answers, I will try to get everybody in. I call Chi Onwurah.

Chi Onwurah: The “Space Investigators” exhibition at the Great North Museum celebrates the amazing history of the north-east in designing and manufacturing telescopes. What support does the Minister offer so that regions such as ours can better understand and promote our great industrial heritage?

Lucy Frazer: I am pleased that work has been going on in the hon. Lady’s constituency on these important matters. Of course, through Arts Council funding and through Department for Culture, Media and Sport funding, we support institutions across the country that support the history of, and what is going on in, their local communities, as well as arts across the country.

Christine Jardine: This is the 900th anniversary of the founding of Edinburgh city and St Giles’ cathedral. Celebrations are planned to mark it, so will the Minister tell us whether the Department is going to be working with the devolved Administration and supporting the local council in celebrating that anniversary? And would she like to come and join the party?

Julia Lopez: It sounds like a superb party and I shall certainly send the invitation to Lord Parkinson, who is the ministerial lead on these issues.

Kevin Brennan: At the most recent British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, I asked the Irish Tourism Minister about their ticketing policy and its success, and they said it was very much a success. So may I suggest that rather than dismiss Labour’s proposals, the Government should look at the evidence from the Irish Government, rather than listening to outlaw companies such as Viagogo?

Julia Lopez: I spoke to officials this week about the Irish example and they were concerned that it had led to an increase in fraudulent activity. However, we will obviously keep this under review.

Clive Efford: Omaze has had a big impact on charity fundraising. Although it is raising money for extremely good causes, does the Secretary of State agree that when people buy tickets for fundraising they should have some idea of what proportion of the money they are spending is actually going to those charities? Should we not have more transparency in this area?

Stuart Andrew: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. He will be aware that we have looked at a range of issues in relation to gambling, lotteries and society lotteries. The prize draws are an area of work we are examining at the moment to get a better understanding  of what the market is like. He rightly says that it is important that people are aware of how much of the money they are spending is going to charities, and we will continue to work in this area.

Church Commissioners

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Easter Church Services

Kevin Foster: To ask the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, what recent assessment the Church has made of trends in the number of families that attend a church service over the Easter period.

Andrew Selous: Although we do not yet have confirmed numbers of worshippers for this Easter just gone, our clergy report high attendance, among all ages, at services, which supports the post-pandemic trend of people returning to services on Easter day in person to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus.

Kevin Foster: The future of the Church is reliant on younger families attending and receiving the good news of the Holy Gospel. What assessment has the Church made of initiatives like the pupil chaplain scheme and regular “Messy Church” at All Saints Torre in achieving that?

Andrew Selous: I was delighted to learn about the pupil chaplain scheme that All Saints Torre is running with Torre Church of England Academy; I will bring it to the attention of the Church nationally. The Church of England has committed £40 million since 2022 to increase provision for children and young people across the country. I thank Father Paul Jones for his service at All Saints Babbacombe and his wife, Jackie, who has led a Rainbows group at the church for many years. Their important work, which includes inspiring the next generation, has been noted and appreciated.

Electoral Commission Committee

The hon. Member for Luton South, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

Integrity of Elections

Alistair Carmichael: To ask the hon. Member for Luton South, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, what recent discussions the committee has had with the Electoral Commission on the integrity of election processes.

Rachel Hopkins: The committee has regular discussions with the Electoral Commission on issues relating to electoral integrity. The commission is working to ensure upcoming elections, including those  in May and the next UK parliamentary general election, are well run and command public confidence. It continues to make recommendations to UK Governments and legislatures to further safeguard the UK’s electoral system, where appropriate.

Alistair Carmichael: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her newly acquired responsibilities in this area. I am sure she brings the same diligence and independence of mind that her father brought to matters in this House for many years. We will be well served by her.
Spotlight on Corruption wrote to the National Crime Agency in December last year highlighting the dangers of UK elections being exposed to dirty money and foreign influence. The commission no longer has powers to raise prosecutions, but it can investigate. Will the hon. Lady use her offices to bring the Electoral Commission’s attention to the Spotlight on Corruption report and see what assessment it makes of it?

Rachel Hopkins: I will bring the report to the attention of the Electoral Commission. The commission has said that it takes all possible steps within the current regulatory framework to prevent unlawful foreign money from entering UK politics, and it publishes information about donations to ensure transparency. It can sanction political parties that accept impermissible foreign donations. It works with the police, who can investigate unlawful foreign money entering UK politics through permissible donors. However, it cannot take enforcement action against organisations based outside the UK. The commission will continue to recommend changes to ensure voters can have greater confidence in political finance in the UK.

House of Commons Commission

The hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Food Waste: Parliamentary Estate

Patrick Grady: To ask the hon. Member for Broxbourne, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps the Commission is taking to reduce food waste on the parliamentary estate.

Charles Walker: The House of Commons Commission takes food waste extremely seriously. We work with organisations, such as FareShare, to use unused food and distribute it, but we also take food that is not eaten on one day and safely use it in other recipes on another day.

Patrick Grady: We have probably all been to events and occasions here where the hosts have perhaps enthusiastically over-ordered. It would be useful to be assured that none of that food goes to landfill and that ways are found to reuse it. These days there are a number of initiatives and apps where venues and stores can make food available at discounted prices at the end of the day. Could that be something that could be extended to staff—obviously not to Members—particularly those who work late on the estate, so that absolutely no food in this place goes to waste?

Charles Walker: We will always look at suggestions. I can reassure the hon. Member that our catering team recently achieved the highest mark in the Sustainable Restaurant Association “Food Made Good” rating. One of the areas that we were assessed on was our commitment to reducing food waste, but clearly we will look at the hon. Member’s suggestions and we will act on them if they have merit.

Eleanor Laing: I call Theresa Villiers—not here.

Church Commissioners

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Families and Households

Philip Hollobone: To ask the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, what steps the Church has taken to support family relationships, parenting and marriage since the establishment of the Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households.

Andrew Selous: The report of the joint Archbishops’ Commission on Families and Households was enthusiastically received by the General Synod at its meeting in February. The Archbishops’ Council is now incorporating the report’s recommendations into the work programme.

Philip Hollobone: The key messages from the Archbishops’ Commission are unambiguous: families, relationships and love matter. The No. 1 action point from the commission is
“to maximise the protective effect of families”.
What steps is the Church of England taking to achieve that in Kettering and across the whole country?

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interest in this important area. I can tell him that the commissioners have had meetings with Departments and with the children’s commissioner to work alongside Government to strengthen family relationships, parenting and marriage. The Church itself wants to play a more active role in this crucial area and is producing new resources to help parishes do so. I am sure he will know that, in his own constituency, St Andrew’s Church is already exemplifying much of this good work under the excellent leadership of the Reverend Tom Houston, who trained as a youth worker prior to ordination.

Chris Bryant: Same-sex couples are able to show love and be a good family as well, so why will the Church of England not recognise same-sex marriage?

Andrew Selous: The hon. Member will know that this is an issue with which the General Synod continues to be involved through the living in love and faith process. We are working through these issues and the Church will have heard very clearly what he has said, and I can assure him that that work is being taken forward.

Abortion Legislation

Desmond Swayne: To ask the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, if the Church will publish a statement on its position on amendments tabled to the Criminal Justice Bill relating to the decriminalisation of abortion before Report stage of that Bill.

Andrew Selous: The Church of England believes that the foetus is a human life with the potential to develop, while recognising that there can be strictly limited conditions under which abortion may be morally preferable to any available alternative. The Church also believes that every possible support, especially by Church members, should be given to those who are pregnant and in difficult circumstances. The Church would support new clauses 15 and 34 and believes that, while women should not face criminalisation, anyone coercing a woman to have an abortion, or providing one beyond the legal limit, or supplying an abortion kit for a late-term use should be prosecuted.

Desmond Swayne: I welcome the support for new clauses 15 and 34. I think the Second Church Estates Commissioner has given implicit opposition to the new clause in the name of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but I am gobsmacked not to have had a clear statement on the criminality of terminating a pregnancy up to the moment of birth by whomsoever. Is the intention to drive us into the arms of Rome? Is he as gobsmacked as I am?

Andrew Selous: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his interest in these serious issues, which, given their importance, I am sure the House will want to treat sensitively. I will convey his comments to the leadership of the Church, but just to repeat: the Church is supporting the two-week reduction in the age of viability from 24 to 22 weeks, based on the latest available evidence that foetuses do survive from 22 weeks onwards. It is also supporting protection for Down’s syndrome children to make the case that abortion beyond the legal limit should not be acceptable for such children. The Church supports the continued prosecution of medical practitioners who assist with abortions beyond the legal limit.

Electoral Commission Committee

The hon. Member for Luton South, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission,  was asked—

Disinformation in Elections

Kirsten Oswald: To ask the hon. Member for Luton South, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, whether the committee has had recent discussions with the Electoral Commission on the potential impact of disinformation on the integrity of elections.

Rachel Hopkins: The committee has had recent discussions with the Electoral Commission on the matters raised. The commission recognises the  risks posed to the integrity of elections by disinformation and misinformation. It runs campaigns raising awareness of the voting process, so voters have accurate information on which to rely. The legal regime that the commission regulates is focused on ensuring that political finance is transparent and that campaigner materials include an imprint showing voters who have produced the material. It does not have a role in regulating the content of election campaign material, but encourages all campaigners to undertake their role responsibly and transparently.

Kirsten Oswald: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s answer. Recently, we have seen a decrease in the effectiveness of search engines such as Google, with material generated by AI, which is designed to produce only things that sound like information, poisoning the well, so to speak, with a marked impact on search results. With this automation of fake news and fake oracles, what plans does the Electoral Commission have to put out guidance on AI-produced materials?

Rachel Hopkins: The commission encourages all campaigners to undertake their role of influencing voters responsibly and transparently, and indeed encourages voters to think critically about the campaign materials that they see. It expects anyone using AI-generated campaign material to use it in a way that benefits open and transparent political debate, and to label it clearly so that voters know how it has been created. Campaign material must also carry an imprint telling voters who has published and paid for it. The commission’s role is to ensure that the financing of campaigns is transparent. It does not have a role in regulating the content of election campaign material, such as preventing the use of deepfakes.

Church Commissioners

The hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Armenian Church: Jerusalem

Edward Leigh: Whether the Church has taken recent steps to support the Armenian church in the old city of Jerusalem.

Andrew Selous: The Bishop of Southwark has raised this issue repeatedly in the other place over the past six months, and it remains an ongoing and very concerning issue. Only 15 days ago, an unlawful eviction was led by the Israeli police within the premises of the Armenian Patriarchate, with no court orders or permits presented.

Edward Leigh: Those of us who are good friends of Israel need to call out the violent activities of the settler movement. The Armenian Christians have enjoyed the best part of 2,000 years in their part of the old city in tranquillity. The appalling incident on 3 April was led not just by thugs but by an Israeli officer called Assaf Harel. Frankly, there was downright intimidation and an attempt to force out Armenian Christians. The Christian population in the old city has declined from 25% a century ago to just 1%. Will the Church of England stand up for Christians in the old city?

Andrew Selous: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for his sustained interest in this really important issue. It would be an absolute tragedy if there were to be no Christians left in the Holy Land. The House will have heard the figures that he has just presented. The pressures facing the Armenian church exemplify those faced by other churches in Jerusalem and the west bank. The Armenian Patriarch of Jerusalem is one of the custodians of the Holy Land and overseers of the four quarters of the city. The Church of England is absolutely clear that the historic settlement and the status quo of Jerusalem need to be maintained. The lack of any call for restraint from the Israeli Government is escalating tensions in Jerusalem, and that remains a great concern.

Sale of Land

Richard Fuller: Whether the Church provides guidance to parishes on the sale of land where there is local opposition to that sale.

Andrew Selous: When the Church Commissioners sell land, they seek to engage all those who are affected by a sale or development. The commissioners are not aware of any land that they own being for sale in North East Bedfordshire.

Richard Fuller: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his response. The word “engage” is interesting in this context. It is the case that there is a church in my constituency where there was local opposition to the sale of allotment land. Discussions were held initially with the diocese, and then at Church House in Westminster. My hon. Friend will be aware that in such discussions there is an imbalance of power, so can he assure me that there is adequate guidance to enable parishioners and local communities to combat effectively pressures to sell land where there is clearly local opposition?

Andrew Selous: I particularly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of allotments, for which there is often a very long waiting list. The land at Henlow is owned by the diocese of St Albans, and I will ask the diocesan secretary to contact him. Of course, he can also speak to the Bishop of Bedford and the Bishop of St Albans, whom we both know well. Charity law places a fiduciary duty on organisations to gain best   value from the sale of their assets. That may be an issue that my hon. Friend would want to raise with the relevant Government Minister, in the context of what is happening in his constituency.

Church Schools

Bob Blackman: What recent assessment the commissioners have made of the contribution of church schools to education in (a) Harrow East constituency and (b) England.

Andrew Selous: The Church of England educates more than 1 million children in its 4,700 schools, which includes 40% of all primary schools in England. Church schools in Harrow East do incredible work, and among them is St John’s School in Stanmore, which has many children for whom English is not their first language and who are from disadvantaged backgrounds. That school achieves a reading progress score of 4.5 compared with the average score in the rest of the local authority of 1.1. That excellent achievement is to be warmly commended.

Bob Blackman: I am very proud of the fact that parents in Harrow East have the option of a Church education or the religious-ethos education of their choice. However, as we all know, the birth rate is dropping, as is the number of children who need primary places in Harrow. There is therefore a direct threat to the rolls at St John’s and other religious-based schools, which may become unviable. What action is the Church taking to enable young people, particularly those who have recently come to this country, who may be of a Christian faith but not necessarily of the Church of England faith, to identify with a Church school and get that sort of education?

Andrew Selous: It may surprise my hon. Friend and the House that there are some Church of England schools in which all the children are from other faiths. That is because Church schools are community schools and welcome all. I will draw his concerns about falling roll numbers both to the diocese of London and to the national education department of the Church of England. However, in my experience, parents have a pretty good nose for finding their way to a good school. The results at St John’s, about which I have just told the House, should help in this case.

Business of the House

Lucy Powell: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Penny Mordaunt: The business for the week commencing 22 April will include:
Monday 22 April—Consideration of a Lords message to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, followed by debate on a motion on hospice funding. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 23 April—Second Reading of the Football Governance Bill, followed by, if necessary, consideration of Lords messages to the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill.
Wednesday 24 April—Remaining stages of the Renters (Reform) Bill, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to terrorism.
Thursday 25 April—Debate on a motion on Lesbian Visibility Week, followed by debate on a motion on the Buckland review of autism employment. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 26 April—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 29 April includes:
Monday 29 April—Consideration in Committee of the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill.
Tuesday 30 April—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill.
Wednesday 1 May—Remaining stages of the Automated Vehicles Bill [Lords].
Thursday 2 May—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the early May bank holiday at the conclusion of business on 2 May and return on Tuesday 7 May.

Lucy Powell: May I take this opportunity to put on record my deepest sympathies to Mr Speaker on the loss of his dear father, Doug Hoyle? I remember him as a real character and an important figure in the Labour movement over many decades, serving both as an MP and then as a peer. He was a proud northerner and represented the traditions of the Labour movement. I know that he was incredibly proud of Mr Speaker, and  I know how much Mr Speaker and Cath cared for him in his later years. My thoughts are with them both.
The attacks by Iran on Israel have rightly been condemned by all sides of the House. Thankfully, its intentions were thwarted, and we join together in calling for restraint and de-escalation in the aftermath. We cannot let those recent events deter or distract from international efforts to bring about a sustainable ceasefire in Gaza and create the conditions for a lasting two-state solution.
As global conflict increases, it is unacceptable that the Government have rejected recommendations from the cross-party Procedure Committee for the Foreign Secretary to be accountable in this House. It is simply not the case that he or the Government have been  “forward-leaning” in that regard, as the Leader of the House has said. Statements by his now deputy—the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)—have been few and far between, and his appearances at Select Committees have all but dried up.
Many times in these exchanges, the Leader of the House has assured us that Members would have the opportunity to question the Foreign Secretary, saying that
“When the Procedure Committee brings forward measures… I am sure those measures will be put in place”—[Official Report, 30 November 2023; Vol. 741, c. 1061.],
so why has she now blocked that—or did she lose the argument in Government? She seems to struggle to be heard in Government lately. I know that she is keen to talk about defence spending too, although apparently No. 10 blocked her. Does she want to take the opportunity today? I know that she, like me, will be concerned to hear that the UK now spends less on defence as a percentage of GDP than when Labour was last in office.
The Leader of the House is not listened to when it comes to legislative business before the House, either. I was really puzzled that she was unable to support a flagship piece of Government legislation, as she apparently thinks it is unworkable. Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, but is it not the job of the Leader of the House to ensure that any Government legislation tabled is well drafted, thought through, and will achieve its aims? She chairs the Government’s legislation committee, does she not? She has more influence than nearly anybody else on the drafting of a Bill, so what went wrong?
After our Easter break, we have returned to groundhog day. It might be a new term, but it is the same old story: more decent Conservative Members announcing that they are standing down; Treasury Ministers hitting the airwaves and getting the numbers wrong; a weak Prime Minister who cannot face down his own party, running scared from his own legislation and refusing to say how his cuts to national insurance will be funded; the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), still unable to show any contrition for her actions directly costing mortgage holders hundreds of pounds a month; Cabinet splits and rival factions all on open display, with ever more extreme positions and platforms taken; and yet more Tory sleaze and scandal.
Today’s revelations about the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) are extraordinary. They raise very serious questions about the misuse of funds and the pressure put on others to facilitate it. Perhaps more importantly, they also raise questions about how these issues are handled by the Conservative party. There is a worrying pattern of cover-up and inaction, so can the Leader of the House shed some light? What did the Chief Whip, the Prime Minister and the party chairman, the right hon. Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), know and when? Why did it take the publication of the story today for the Whip to be removed? Has this matter been referred to the police, and if not, why not?
It seems that yet again, like with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg) and so many other recent cases of sleaze and scandal, the Government are too weak to act decisively, and instead choose to brush things under the carpet. The truth is that they have given up on governing, and given up on winning the next election: it is all about saving their own skin and  the inevitable leadership battle. I can tell the Leader of the House that we on the Labour Benches have been there before, and it does not end well. The public do not easily forgive politicians who put party before country and do not focus relentlessly on fixing the problems they face.

Penny Mordaunt: I join the hon. Lady in formally conveying my sympathies to Mr Speaker on the loss of his father; I have spoken to him privately, and written to him as well. I also congratulate 3 Dads Walking on being awarded the petition of the year by the Petitions Committee for their important work on suicide prevention, and wish all colleagues—18 of them in total—and everyone else running the marathon good luck.
On Monday evening, the very special Jewish festival of Passover begins. Like their ancestors before them, Jewish families around the world will gather around their Seder tables to retell the story of the Jewish people’s exodus from Egypt. However, this year many of them will be leaving an empty seat open at those tables for those still held captive by Hamas in Gaza. I hope this will be the last Jewish holiday where they are unable to celebrate with their families, and wish chag sameach to all those celebrating. I also thank all hon. Members for their resolve and support with regard to Israel’s security—that is an important message that we send from this House.
The hon. Lady mentions the issue of the Foreign Secretary, and the Government’s work in that regard, being accountable to this House. Since the Foreign Secretary was appointed, we have had eight Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office statements, three prime ministerial statements on foreign affairs, a general debate in Government time on the situation in the Red sea and 17 Westminster Hall debates responded to by FCDO ministers, as well as oral questions in both Houses. We are sticking with the usual precedents of both Houses.
The hon. Lady asks me to comment on defence, and I am very happy to compare this Government’s record with the last Labour Government’s record. We have had the largest uplift to the defence budget since the end of the cold war. When we came into office, we inherited a defence budget and equipment programme with a £71 billion black hole, on Royal United Services Institute figures. I remember from my own constituency that Portsmouth, Faslane and Plymouth were having to state the case to continue to be naval bases in this country. The previous Labour Government knew their record with members of the armed forces was poor, because in 2005 they disenfranchised all of them by changing the rules on voter registration.
The hon. Lady points to the vote on smoking. I think free votes in this place on such matters are good. However, whatever our difference of opinion, in future years I am hopeful there will be fewer fag packets around on which Labour economic teams can do their sums, and I think that is a jolly good thing.
Labour Members seem to be continuing to push their line on national insurance contributions. Good look to them in that respect, but let me just point out some of the reasons why it will not get traction. National insurance contributions receipts do not determine the NHS budget or pensions, it is only the Labour party that has cut the NHS budget and it is actually Labour’s policy—at least,  it was when I came into the Chamber—to support our tax cuts. I hope that is helpful information for the hon. Lady.
The hon. Lady mentioned some very serious allegations and other incidents that came to light during the recess. These are very serious matters and some of them are under police investigation, so she would not expect me to comment on them, but we take these matters very seriously. We have taken action again this week to improve online safety and other matters.
The deepfake phenomenon is more widespread than we might think, and the public may well be fooled into thinking that something is the case when it is not, or that a person they know is manifestly different, and we need to expose such scams. The hon. Lady talks about defence, and someone might be tempted to believe a person is committed to this nation’s nuclear deterrent, but note that, in reality, the same person was content to serve in the Cabinet of the last Labour leader and that six of his Front Benchers voted to end our nuclear deterrent. They might think that the Labour party is the party of the NHS, but as we know, it is the only party that has cut the NHS budget. They might be tempted by the sound of “securonomics”, only to discover that that is built on unfunded pledges and unspecified tax increases.
Someone might be tempted by the look of the shadow Chancellor’s commitment to end unpaid internships, only to find that she has used them herself, or of Labour’s campaign against fire and rehire, only to discover that that is exactly what Labour HQ did under the current Labour leader. They might be sucked in by talk about its wanting to protect pensioners and then learn that it will not commit to our triple lock, and that hundreds of thousands more pensioners were living in absolute poverty under the last Labour Government. Businesses might be flattered by email and online ads from Labour, unaware of the 70 new regulatory burdens that would be piled on to them under a Labour Government.
My advice is: “Don’t be tempted!” People should not be fooled by a shadow Foreign Secretary who nominated the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) to be Prime Minister; a shadow International Development Secretary who wants to turn our armed forces into a hippy hit squad; a party that, until last year, had a shadow Minister for disarmament; a shadow Energy Secretary whose poor judgment on national security and our interests led to disaster and to Op Shader; a shadow Deputy Prime Minister who holds others to standards she does not think should apply to herself; or a party that talks tough on borders, but as of yesterday, has voted 132 times again strengthening them.
The Leader of the Opposition has spent four years in office posting pictures to his profile of Neil Kinnock, Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher. Do not be fooled: behind that profile sits a man with no plan for this country, except the vested interests of militant unions, and support for the arguments of those who would do this nation harm. It is deepfake Labour led by catfish Keir. Do not fall for it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before we proceed may I, on behalf of Mr Speaker, thank the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House, and all other Members who have expressed their sympathy to him on the loss of his father? Lord Hoyle,  Doug Hoyle, was a dedicated parliamentarian, an inspirational, kind and amusing gentleman, and a very proud father. He will be very greatly missed, and I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our sympathy to Mr Speaker and his family. Our thoughts will be with them as they make arrangements for Lord Hoyle’s funeral.
I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: We will remember Doug Hoyle’s smile, we will remember him with a smile, and I remember that he got elected eight months before I did.
Questions on the Cass report in this House were followed yesterday by those in the other place, and the Lords Minister said that he would respond to a number of points in writing. If information is given by the Minister that was not given to this House, could it be put in a written statement or put in the Library? Many of the points, especially those made by Baroness Hayter, were important. We need an inquiry into how things got into the state that had to be exposed by the four-year review by Dr Hilary Cass, for which we all thank her.
One thing that has not yet happened, but may happen in the next week or two, is the publication of the report from the Select Committee on the Holocaust Memorial Bill through its hybrid procedure. It is coming later than we anticipated, and may contain some interesting recommendations or decisions. Will the Government say, as soon as possible, whether they intend to go on trying to ram this proposal through? They have already spent more than £30 million achieving nothing in the last eight and a half years, so will they have a roundtable and consider spending £20 million getting a memorial up in the next two years, during the lifetime of some of the holocaust survivors, and moving the learning centre to the Imperial War Museum?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I will certainly ensure that his request about the Cass review is undertaken. He knows that a process is being gone through at the moment for the memorial, and I will again ensure that the relevant Secretary of State has heard what he said today. There are also questions to that Secretary of State on Monday, and he may wish to make use of that opportunity.

Eleanor Laing: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Deidre Brock: May I associate myself with the remarks about Passover and about Mr Speaker’s late father, and send my sincerest condolences to him and his family?
Since we last met for business questions, the Leader of the House has been keeping busy, and I thought that one of her social media posts on X during the recess was particularly eye-catching. Indeed, it was unique because it asked her constituents to contact her directly, so outraged was she by a burning injustice. It started:
“Damn right. I know many people will have strong feelings on this…email me…and I will make sure your concerns”
are heard. Those are such strong feelings that you may wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, what caused that righteous anger, which was not just from the Leader of the House but from Members across the Chamber.
Was it children getting sick swimming through human faeces in the rivers of England, or perhaps the endless strikes in the NHS in England? Was it arms sales to Israel, or an economic crisis that was triggered by a former Prime Minister, now saviour of the west? Was it the cruel, immoral, illegal and ruinously expensive Rwanda scheme? Perhaps the angry post was just a response to the Leader of the House’s constituents in Portsmouth, who are now furious—rightly enough—about the likely demolition of the brand new border control post in Portsmouth, which is among a herd of such white elephants around the UK, and a direct result of the right hon. Lady’s ongoing Brexit confusion that will cost a fortune. No—that was not what prompted the outburst. The Leader of the House and many of her colleagues were furious about England’s new football top—“damn right” they were.
So, no, the farce of the doomed border post on the right hon. Lady’s doorstep has not figured in the busy social media output we see from her. Her Government’s disastrous Brexit import charges are none the less coming in on 30 April, causing even more costly confusion and raising very real concerns about food shortages, as well as her own local difficulties. May I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate on these new Brexit charges and the ongoing catastrophe of Brexit, which Scots rejected, yet are forced to suffer the ill effects of? Her constituents will be interested to hear an answer—ideally before she wastes more time launching into another anti-Scotland video script.

Penny Mordaunt: First, I should thank the hon. Lady for her concern about Portsmouth port, which is doing very well. We have a brand-new passenger terminal and an enormous number of new ship visits, which are projected to increase our local economy by £300 million over the next few years. That is in addition to massively increasing and diversifying the freight coming into that port. I hope she will welcome the news that the United Kingdom is exporting more and has just become the fourth-largest exporter in the world. We are doing very well.
I am always keen to facilitate my constituents who wish to make complaints to all sorts of organisations in their ability to do that. I just say to the hon. Lady that our nation’s flag is important to the people of Portsmouth. I suggest that she might like to think twice before she mocks that view. These things and these traditions are important. They are not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.
The hon. Lady has been busy, too, during the recess, penning articles about how much my colleagues and I hate Scotland and the Scottish people. She has done it again in her opening remarks and her questions to me. At some point, she will have to say why she thinks that is the case. I know that the Scottish rugby team has being doing well against England, but that is not grounds to justify her accusations against me. The SNP seems hellbent on exposing hate where there is none. I understand that of the 9,000 hate crimes reported under the SNP’s new law, with 3,419 made on 1 April alone, only nine will qualify under this new law, and seven of those nine have now been dismissed. Police Scotland deserves our thanks and our sympathy. I am sure that those police officers joined the force to do something much more helpful for their communities. It is only the Conservatives  who have stood against this lunacy, and we will continue to do that. Other parties had the opportunity to repeal this law and chose not to. We on the Government Benches know that laws and movements based on hate and division always try to curtail freedom, and we know that in the end such movements always fail.

Bob Blackman: I associate myself with your remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, about the late father of Mr Speaker.
The Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), is with his family right now, because his daughter-in-law is still extremely ill. I am sure the whole House will send our sympathy and best wishes for a speedy recovery. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
On behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, I thank my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for the allocation of time for the hospice funding debate. I hope that will take place on Monday. It is heavily subscribed, I believe, and a lot of Members will want to take part. We have now filled our Chamber time. On 2 May, there will be a debate on security in the western Balkans and another on pension schemes. On 9 May, if we are given the time, there will be debates on miners and mining communities and on the BBC mid-term charter review, both of which are popular matters for discussion. We have also allocated all the time available to us in Westminster Hall. If the Leader of the House has more time that she needs to allocate to the Backbench Business Committee, we can readily fill up that time if she wishes.
The Mayor of London made a solemn promise before the last mayoral election that he would not expand the ultra low emission zone to outer London. No sooner had he been re-elected than he started a consultation on expanding ULEZ to outer London. The fact that 66% of respondents objected seemed to have no bearing on his decision; he immediately introduced ULEZ to the whole of outer London, and people are suffering as a result. At this election, he is promising not to introduce pay per mile if he is re-elected. Can we trust him? Not a bit of it. The reality is that his adviser—

Kevin Brennan: This is a speech. Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Eleanor Laing: Order. If the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was out of order and had to sit down, I would tell him so. I do not need the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) to tell me how to conduct the affairs of the Chamber.

Bob Blackman: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. One of the Mayor’s key advisers has let slip that the Mayor is planning to do precisely that if he is re-elected. Can we have a debate in Government time on promises made at elections and promises broken?

Penny Mordaunt: First, I thank my hon. Friend for stepping up in place of the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. I am sure that all Members will join him in sending our thoughts and love to the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) and his whole family at this difficult time. I also thank him for the advert for future Backbench Business Committee debates.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the abysmal record and broken promises of Labour’s London Mayor, whose war on motorists will, I am afraid, continue. He is targeting people through the ULEZ and low-traffic neighbourhoods, which disproportionately hit those on low incomes. Meanwhile, Transport for London is not in a financially stable position, and every year, 15,000 fewer homes are being delivered than the Mayor promised in his London plan. Labour has a record of failing not only those in Wales, Birmingham, Nottingham and countless other places, but Londoners, who will be safer with Susan Hall. I urge all hon. Members to support her.

Rachel Hopkins: The Prime Minister has said that he would hold a general election in June or July if the results of May’s election were not that bad for his party. May I ask the Leader of the House to persuade the Prime Minister to consider the good of the country when considering and deciding on the timing of the general election?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for that innovative question. Dates of elections are way above my pay grade, but I will again urge everyone to vote Conservative when that opportunity arises.

Robert Jenrick: Last month, Niyak Ghorbani was wrongly arrested for holding up a placard saying that Hamas are terrorists. He was later de-arrested. Yesterday, just yards from this place, the same man was once again arrested for holding the same sign. He was then de-arrested again. Hamas are terrorists, and we should all say so and defend freedom of speech. Will my right hon. Friend organise a debate in Government time on how we can end two-tier policing and restore public confidence in the Metropolitan police?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. This is an important matter that other hon. Members have raised in the Chamber, particularly when the first incident happened. The policy is clear, and I am pleased that, in both situations, the arrest was reversed, but it goes to show the importance of our having in place not just the right policies, but the operational policing plan, as well as training being undertaken to ensure that officers, who often face difficult and confusing situations, know exactly what they should be doing and when. I shall ensure that both the Home Secretary and the head of the Metropolitan police have heard his remarks.

Diana R. Johnson: It is over a year since Sir Brian Langstaff made his final recommendations on compensation. The Government have accepted the moral case for compensation to be paid. More than 100 people have died in the last 12 months, and still no money has been allocated for compensation. It was a step forward yesterday that amendments were tabled to the Victims and Prisoners Bill in the other place, but the amendment that this House agreed, which included a three-month timeframe for a compensation body to be set up, has been removed by Government amendments in the other place. Could we have a statement from the Minister on why it is taking so long to set up this compensation body, and to get compensation paid? If the Government wanted to, they could expedite matters, as they have done with the Post Office scandal,  and could bring a stand-alone Bill to this House. I am sure that the House would get that Bill through to get compensation to these people before they die.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank again the right hon. Lady for her diligent work on this incredibly important issue. She met the Minister concerned—the Paymaster General—yesterday, and he will have given her an update on his work. We recognise that many victims have waited too long for compensation. This Government established the inquiry, and the Minister established the compensation review that was done. The Government amendment that the right hon. Lady referred to includes a provision for interim payments to be made to the estates of people who were infected by contaminated blood products, have passed away, and were registered with the infected blood scheme or its predecessor schemes, where an interim payment has not already been made. I have regular meetings with the Minister who is overseeing this matter. She will know that he is working at pace. I am glad that we have gripped this issue, but we need to get those interim payments and full compensation to people swiftly, and I am confident that that will happen.

Tom Randall: One of the biggest issues that my constituents raise on the doorstep is the condition of our roads. A lot of work is being done to fix the roads in Gedling and Nottinghamshire, but cash is a big issue. I warmly welcome the fact that, as part of the new East Midlands Combined Authority, Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire will have one of the largest devolved transport budgets. Given this change, could we have a debate in Government time on infrastructure and investment in the east midlands? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a debate would be a good opportunity to highlight the fact that, having done so much work to secure a devolution deal for the east midlands, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) is the person best placed to lead the east midlands into this new future?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is right that on 2 May, those in the east midlands will have the opportunity to ensure that that happens. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley)—that is not how his name will appear on the ballot paper—has helped to secure the biggest single devolved transport budget in the country. He has plans to invest that in road resurfacing and better bus and train routes, and he has a plan for how that will attract jobs and investment. In contrast, the Labour party has wasted £38 million of taxpayers’ money on its failed Robin Hood Energy scheme, and like other Labour local authorities, Nottingham City Council has declared itself bankrupt, which raises council tax and makes the hard-working people of Nottinghamshire pay for Labour’s failures. If my hon. Friend secured a debate on this topic, it would be well attended.

Wera Hobhouse: I add my sincere condolences to Mr Speaker and his family on the loss of his father.
A report from the Jo Cox Foundation called the abuse of MPs a “threat to democracy”. That applies to abuse of not just MPs, but elected members at all levels, particularly local councillors. According to the Local  Government Association, 70% of councillors have had similar experiences to MPs. I had a meeting with the Bath and North East Somerset group leaders last week, at which I heard harrowing stories. We MPs now get extra security through Operation Bridger, but local councillors do not get the same protections. Is it not time that the Government put their mind to protecting elected members at all levels? May we have a statement on that, please?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Lady raises a very important matter. She will know that the defending democracy taskforce, headed by the Minister for Security, is looking at these issues, and is, in some cases, providing support to councillors or councils across the country. The Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology also met Mr Speaker and me earlier this week about online abuse that hon. Members face. There needs to be more focus on what platforms are doing, their stated responsibilities, and whether they are living up to them. I will ensure that that Secretary of State and the Minister for Security have heard what the hon. Lady has said today.

Alec Shelbrooke: I applaud the Government’s efforts to try to sort out the Gibraltar-Spain border. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I say how encouraged I was by the agreement announced last Friday. However, the EU Commissioner has been contrary on the issues of airport goods and mobility, and we have been given only some detail on the direction of travel in those areas. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, Fabian Picardo, has gone on record to say that Gibraltar will never be Spanish, a sentiment in which I am sure the whole House will share. In the light of the comments by the EU Commissioner, will my right hon. Friend make time for a debate in the House, in which it can be made clear by all parties that the House will never compromise on British sovereignty on the Rock, or its people’s right to self-determination?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for affording the Government the opportunity to state again at the Dispatch Box that we will never compromise on the British sovereignty of the Rock, or the right of its people to self-determination. Gibraltar is incredibly important to us strategically and culturally. Gibraltar enables us to defend its interests and ours, and as a consequence, we will defend Gibraltar from anyone who has other ideas.

Chi Onwurah: May we have a debate in Government time on the role of regional Mayors? Lord Houchen, the Conservative Tees Valley Mayor, seems to believe that his role is to benefit his mates, while distancing himself as far as possible from the Conservative party in whose name he is standing, whereas Chris McEwan, our Labour party candidate, and Kim McGuinness, our fantastic candidate for North East Mayor, believe that their role would be to bring opportunity to every corner of the region, and to be a voice for everyone in the region. Who is right?

Penny Mordaunt: The fact that Ben Houchen irritates the Labour party so much is a testament to his good work. He saved Teesside Airport from closure, and it is  now delivering new flights for local people. He secured the UK’s first and largest freeport, which is already securing billions of pounds of private investment, with the Teesworks site having secured investment from Thai banks. The demolition and decontamination of land has been delivered ahead of budget and time, ready for reinvestment, and he has done many other things, but the statistic that stands out most is that he has increased the employment rate in the area by 3% above the national average. He is doing a great job. He is a good man, and I hope that he will have the opportunity to continue to do that good job in the wake of the appalling smears by the Labour party.

Peter Gibson: I thank my right hon. Friend for allocating a slot on Monday for the hospice debate. Does she agree that the Prime Minister’s decision to establish the Darlington economic campus, following relentless campaigning by me, my fantastic Tees Valley colleagues and our marvellous Mayor Ben Houchen, was a game changer for Darlington? Does she further agree that saving our airport, launching Teesworks and restoring Tees pride are further examples of why Ben Houchen should continue to serve Teesside, Darlington and Hartlepool? Can she find time for a debate on the modernising revolution that Ben has unleashed, which is benefiting every part of our great region?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for asking another question with regard to our Ben Houchen, because his achievements simply could not possibly be crammed into one answer. He is also enabling Net Zero Teesside, the world’s first industrial scale carbon capture, usage and storage facility. He is delivering over £200 million of investment in Darlington, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool’s rail stations to improve rail capacity, and he is using reallocated High Speed 2 money to transform local transport, including the long-overdue Darlington northern link road. Again, I urge anyone who has the opportunity to vote on 2 May to enable him to continue that good work to do so.

Anum Qaisar: One of my constituents recently got in touch after fleeing domestic abuse in his relationship. Owing to societal stigma, male survivors are often overlooked, leaving them without adequate safeguarding services or police support. Given that one third of domestic abuse victims are male, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate, in Government time, about improving support for all victims of domestic abuse?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Lady raises a very important point. Many of the measures that we have introduced to deal with domestic abuse or with people trying to control others in one way or another, including financially, apply to everyone who is in the unfortunate position of being a victim. Advertising these services to everyone who might be affected is also important, so I shall ensure that the relevant Home Office Minister has heard what she has said.

Steve Double: I welcome the Government’s work to expand the role of community pharmacies as part of our healthcare system. I particularly welcome the Pharmacy First scheme, which was successfully  piloted in Cornwall. However, while we are placing more demand on pharmacies, the number of community pharmacies in Cornwall is falling, with both Boots and Asda announcing closures. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) has written to Asda opposing the closure of its pharmacy in Bodmin. Pharmacy owners tell me that the current funding arrangements are not adequate to meet the growing demand. May we have a statement from the Department of Health and Social Care on the Government’s plans to maintain, and hopefully increase, the number of community pharmacies, particularly in rural areas, and ensure that they receive the funding that they need?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the excellent service Pharmacy First, which is a much appreciated and convenient scheme that enables people to access certain prescription drugs without having to go to their general practitioner. Given that pharmacies are private businesses that receive NHS funding for pharmaceutical services, closure decisions are obviously made by those commercial organisations, but my hon. Friend’s local care board will have a responsibility to ensure good coverage of those services. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care has heard his concerns, and that all his constituents are able to make use of all available services, including Pharmacy First.

Christian Wakeford: I join the Leader of the House in wishing the Jewish community, whom I am proud to represent, chag Pesach sameach.
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Bernard, Jonno and the entire team at Radcliffe football club on reaching their highest ever position as champions of the northern premier league? They will be lifting the trophy this Saturday. Will she agree to a debate in Government time about the importance of grassroots football and its benefit to local communities? But more importantly, up the Boro!

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure that the whole House will want to join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating Bernard, Jonno and the whole team on their incredible achievements. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have recently held debates on the importance of community sport to not only helping communities but providing a pipeline of new talent. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has heard what he has said.

Virginia Crosbie: For years, the town of Amlwch has been forgotten, but not on my watch. Anglesey freeport and the UK Government’s recent purchase of the Wylfa nuclear site mean jobs and investment coming to the north of the island—but I am not stopping there. Along with a local resident, Mandy Jones, I have launched a campaign to get the supermarket Aldi to come to Amlwch to give my constituents the opportunity to shop locally. Will the Leader of the House support my Aldi to Amlwch campaign, and if it is successful, will she join Mandy and me in cutting the ribbon?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend on all her achievements: the freeport; the partnership between the county council and Stena Line, which will be a huge  boost to the local economy; and of course her championing of energy projects, the prosperity park and the inaugural trade centre of excellence in Wales. She has helped to secure all those things. I will be very happy to do all I can to help her latest campaign, which sounds like a good one. Although I cannot commit to a date until she gives me one, I hope that if I am able to attend, I will be able to help cut the ribbon—perhaps with a sword.

Christine Jardine: I was recently able to visit California, in the United States, with the Scottish Affairs Committee to look at the opportunities there and the ecosystem that has been created. Everyone we spoke to in the space sector spoke very highly of our universities and the sector in this country. However, we regularly hear of a skills shortage in that industry, which is a massive opportunity not just for Scotland, but for the whole of the UK. It is some time since we had a debate in this place on the opportunities in the space sector. Would the Leader of the House consider setting aside time for such a debate?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for all she is doing to support this growing and important sector in every part of the United Kingdom. The Government are very aware of the need to ensure that we have skills and a growing workforce that can contribute to it. We are delivering on our commitment to build a whole-UK space ecosystem by working with business, academic institutions and the devolved Administrations, and we have backed that with funding. She will know how to apply for a debate, but I shall make sure that the Secretary of State has heard her keenness to give this very important matter more of an airing.

Theresa Villiers: Can we have a debate on the importance of improving NHS services and expanding capacity in Barnet so that I can update the House on the excellent progress made towards the enlargement of Barnet Hospital A&E, with planning permission secured, work under way, more staff arriving, and patients expected to have a significant improvement in facilities by January?

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the work she has done on this matter, particularly securing the £6.5 million redevelopment of the urgent and emergency care unit in her local hospital. I think that the timeline she outlined is correct, and the work will certainly have a massive impact on improving patient waiting times and reducing ambulance handover times by creating additional capacity. She will know that she can air questions to the Secretary of State on this matter on 23 April, which is next week.

Lyn Brown: I am absolutely delighted to tell the House that 81 students from the Bobby Moore Academy in West Ham will be welcomed to the Royal Opera House today to watch a performance of “Swan Lake”. I hope that they absolutely love it and that it inspires a lifetime of getting joy from the arts. I am sure the Leader of the House will agree with me and my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition that every child should have the opportunity to fall in love with the arts. Can we have a debate in  Government time where we can explore ways that we can give working-class communities like mine greater access to the arts?

Penny Mordaunt: I hope that all students from the Bobby Moore Academy have a wonderful time watching “Swan Lake” today. The hon. Lady knows that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that every child can experience high-quality performances. The funding that we have distributed has been across the whole of the UK, which is very important. She has just missed the opportunity to raise this issue with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, so I shall make sure that she has heard what the hon. Lady has said today.

Desmond Swayne: Can we debate whether changes to the Standing Orders are necessary? They are the nearest thing that we have to a written constitution. Yesterday, there were multiple references to guests in the Gallery. A few weeks ago, when an hon. Member made such as reference, the fellow actually got up and took a bow. It may be that the current Standing Orders are no longer fit for purpose and that allowing such references should be in the gift of the Chair, but we ought to make the change, rather than just go on ignoring the Standing Orders.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising a question that is actually in my brief, which is quite a new experience for me. Other Members have raised similar concerns, and I will make sure that Mr Speaker hears that. I think some flexibility is appreciated, as we quite often have particular people that we in the House want to acknowledge and send support to in that manner, but I will make sure that Mr Speaker has heard that point. It will be a matter for him, as well as for the whole of the House. In the meantime, I am sure that we can rely on my right hon. Friend to loudly tut whenever that happens.

Tonia Antoniazzi: On Tuesday, the Prime Minister was able to rely on Labour votes to pass his flagship smoking Bill. Does the Leader of the House agree that, sadly for Government Members, that shows a Prime Minister in office but not actually in power?

Penny Mordaunt: We have free votes on some matters in this place, and after the initial shock, confusion and pressure from having to decide which Lobby to go into, that is appreciated by hon. Members. On that vote, the Prime Minister put forward world-leading legislation, which he had passed by this House. I think that that shows that he is very much in control.

Martin Vickers: My local newspaper, the Grimsby Telegraph, carried a recent report praising the work of community police officer Dave Cave, highlighting the importance of community policing. I am pleased to say that, in Humberside police, both chief officers and the excellent police commissioner, Jon Evison, also support community policing. Could we have a debate in Government time to explore policing methods and the importance of community policing?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure that everyone in the House would want to send their congratulations to PC Dave Cave for his near 20 years of service. I am sure  that all colleagues would join me in doing that and would congratulate him on that well-deserved award. He exemplifies what it means to be a police officer and a fantastic community champion. I am sure that my hon. Friend knows how to apply for a debate, but such an opportunity would also afford us the ability to shine a spotlight on the very good work done by our police forces. We do not note and praise them enough for it.

Alex Davies-Jones: Constituents of mine in Pontypridd and Glyncoch have got in touch regarding concerns about the operation of Craig-yr-Hesg quarry. Will the Leader of the House support me in securing a debate to ensure that real-time silica dust monitoring is invested in up and down the country, so that my constituents and many others living near quarry sites do not have to live in fear?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry to hear about the situation in the hon. Lady’s constituency. The next questions to the relevant Secretary of State are not until 9 May, so I will write and make sure that he has heard what she has said.

Craig Whittaker: As a keen motorcyclist, I welcome the Government setting out an ambitious vision for the moped, motorcycle and entire powered light vehicle sector in their 2021 transport decarbonisation plan. A road map to realising that vision is in their joint action plan with the Motorcycle Industry Association. The key to reducing emissions and alleviating congestion is improving access to the sector through a full-scale licence review. Can we please have a debate in Government time on the Motorcycle Industry Association’s A Licence to Net Zero campaign?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that campaign. He will know that the Department has been meeting with that body—I think that they met at a roundtable on 17 January—and with other parts of industry on the issues that he touches on. Although there are no current plans to reform category L vehicle licences, officials met stakeholders at the end of last year, and I think that they are due to have a follow-up ministerial roundtable with the relevant Minister shortly after the May recess, which that particular trade body will be attending. However, I thank my right hon. Friend for continuing to campaign on its behalf.

Patrick Grady: I echo the condolences paid to Mr Speaker and note that mass was offered in the crypt chapel last night for the repose of Doug Hoyle’s soul.
We have heard the Leader of the House reinforce the Government’s rejection of the Procedure Committee’s recommendation for the Foreign Secretary to be scrutinised at the Bar of the House. She has also written to encourage the Procedure Committee to investigate the operation of the Standing Orders governing Opposition days. What is the point of the Procedure Committee investigating matters on her recommendation if the Government simply dismiss its recommendations?

Penny Mordaunt: It is important that I raise these matters with the Procedure Committee, but it is up to the Committee what it decides. On the latter point, the Committee had a meeting yesterday to discuss my  correspondence. I think it does a very good job, and the Government do not dismiss its findings. More often than not, we agree with its findings. Where we have disagreements—and we disagreed with only part of that particular report—we publish our response. Of course, the other place also has a stake in this matter.

Luke Evans: Last month I was targeted by a honeytrap plot, which I immediately reported to the police and the authorities. I put on the record my sincere thanks to Leicestershire police, who have been exemplary in taking it on. I also thank the Whips for their support. However, I have significant concerns about how this was handled by parliamentary security. Will the Leader of the House ask Mr Speaker to conduct a full review of the system for reporting and investigating incidents reported by MPs, so that lessons can be learned and no MP has to go through the same experiences?

Penny Mordaunt: I was very sorry to learn of what happened to my hon. Friend. I thank him for putting on the record his thanks to his local police force, which has been fantastic in its work. I will of course ensure that not just Mr Speaker but the whole House of Commons Commission has heard his concerns. I know that the head of security here takes these matters very seriously, and I am sure this will be followed up.

Charlotte Nichols: I associate myself with the remarks of the Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House on the sad passing of Lord Hoyle, who was a much-loved icon of Warrington, and in wishing my fellow Jews chag Pesach sameach.
My constituent Adam Rowland recently met the Prime Minister, who promised live on television, no less, that he would be in touch with him regarding his negative reaction to the covid vaccine and his difficulty accessing the recommended treatment on the NHS. Since then, despite repeated requests, Adam has had no response from anyone in Government and feels like he is being treated as some sort of pariah and anti-vax conspiracy theorist. He is not. He is just a man who did the right thing in taking up the vaccine and was one of the unfortunate minority who became ill, and he needs some support. Will the Leader of the House please help Adam get the response he was promised?

Penny Mordaunt: Of course I will do that. If the hon. Lady gives me the details, I will follow it up straight after this session. Those who are injured by vaccines need access to support, healthcare and answers, and we should ensure that they get them.

Jerome Mayhew: The Government are absolutely right to fund the doubling of dental training places over the next five years, because they understand how important access to NHS dentistry is for our constituents. For a person growing up in Broadland, the nearest dentistry training place is currently in Birmingham or London, because the east of England is the only region that does not have a dental training school. May we have a debate on the importance of having a new dental training school in East Anglia, and preferably at the University of East Anglia?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that increasing the number and making sure that every region has medical schools and dental schools is vital, and not just for growing the workforce but for ensuring that the workforce is located where it is required. I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said today. My hon. Friend will know that we have had a huge catch-up job to do since the pandemic. We are doing that with 23% more treatments delivered in the last year alone, with an additional 1.7 million adults and 800,000 children receiving NHS dental care, but more needs to be done to ensure that everyone can remain dentally fit.

Barbara Keeley: Let me join other Members in sending my sympathy to Mr Speaker and his family on the loss of his father, Lord Hoyle.
I have written to the Health Secretary four times on behalf of a constituent to ask why 65 to 69-year-olds have been excluded from the recent so-called “expansion” of the roll-out of the NHS shingles vaccine. Those who are turning 65 are eligible for it, but those already 65 to 69 are missing out and must wait until they are 70 to become eligible, despite the extra vulnerabilities of their age group. Not a single response out of the four from the Minister gave me a straight answer as to why 65 to 69-year-olds are being excluded from this vaccine roll-out. Will the Leader of the House advise me on any other way I can get a clear response from the Minister that lays out clinical or practical reasoning to back up her Department’s decision to exclude 65 to 69-year-olds from the shingles vaccine?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Lady raises an important question. If the Department had responded to her— I will certainly ask why it has not—the reply would have talked about the step change in the roll-out and how the Department is going to manage the expansion of access to that vaccine. That is understandable, but I know that it is not acceptable to many Members in this House, because from the logic of that it follows that there will be a vaccine available to people who would benefit from it, and the evidence shows that it is clinically effective and cost-effective for those individuals, but they will not be able to access it now. Members are right to press the policy on that front. Obviously, she can raise this issue at questions, but I know it is a concern for a large number of Members and so will make sure that the Secretary of State has heard this and will ask the committees that look at this policy to sense-check what it is doing.

Pauline Latham: Progress has been made at Alstom in Derby, with a potential order of 10 trains approved for funding. We hope that will secure the site’s future, and I thank my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary for his hard work on this matter in recent months. However, questions remain about the future of rail in the UK, including, of course, about the future of Great British Rail’s new headquarters in Derby. May we have a debate in Government time on the issue?

Penny Mordaunt: First, let me thank my hon. Friend for all the work she is doing to ensure that this new HQ is established quickly. I know that a lot of close working has been undertaken with Derby-based partners, including  the city council, to create a shared plan for that HQ, and that she has been diligent and has been tabling written parliamentary questions on this matter. I shall ensure that the Secretary of State has heard her continuing campaigning on it today. She will know that the next Transport questions will take place on 16 May, which will be after that timetable has been confirmed.

Kirsten Oswald: I have been dealing with a long-running case involving constituents who lost their investment in the Paradise Golf and Beach Resort in Morocco. Some 800 investors, the majority of them British, lost investments in the resort after construction abruptly halted in 2016. I have contacted the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office numerous times, as well as writing to the relevant ambassadors. The FCDO confirmed the Moroccan ambassador’s willingness to meet investors, but no meeting has been arranged to date. May we have a debate in Government time on how the FCDO can best support those, such as my constituents, who have been left high and dry in this situation?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sorry to hear about that situation and will of course make sure that the FCDO knows that the hon. Lady has asked about it again today. The next questions to the ministerial team will be on 30 April, so I shall make sure that they have heard that she might raise the issue then. If my office can facilitate getting either consular assistance or more long- term assistance for those investors, please do call on us.

Kieran Mullan: As someone who grew up in Birmingham, it pains me to see the total financial mismanagement of Birmingham City Council by the Labour party. Its record stands in stark contrast to that of Mayor Andy Street. If growth, regeneration and house building are left to the Labour party alone in the west midlands, it will mean no progress at best, but regression at worst. Does my right hon. Friend agree that voters should support Andy Street in May, to ensure that they keep a Mayor who can at least actually get things done?

Penny Mordaunt: Whatever people’s political persuasions, they recognise that about Andy Street. He is above politics. When it has come down to fighting for the people he represents, he has chosen to side with them, in some cases against the policies of his own party. He delivers for people. He has built more homes for young people and families than in any other region. He has secured new and improved rail services across the region. Hundreds of millions of pounds have been spent on redeveloping wasteland instead of building on Birmingham’s green belt. Some £10 billion in Government investment has been secured for the region, and 10 times the amount of transport funding than anyone else has ever managed to get in. He has secured some 100,000 new jobs from his covid recovery plan, 4,000 apprenticeships and four metro extensions. And that is all without raising a single penny of additional tax. If people want that record to continue, they need to let Andy Street continue as their Mayor.

Holly Lynch: The Leader of the House will have followed the efforts of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to oppose  plans for an incinerator in his constituency. She will also be aware that Ministers have now issued a direction to the Environment Agency
“to temporarily pause the determination of certain environmental permits for new waste incineration facilities”,
saying that will give Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials the chance to
“lead a piece of work considering the role of waste incineration in the management of residual wastes”.
She will also be aware that the majority of permits for incinerators are considered and granted by local authorities rather than by the Environment Agency. Much to the annoyance of residents across Calderdale, this pause does not apply to permits applied for from local authorities rather than from the Environment Agency. Does she agree that unless all permits are paused and all applications are considered as part of this piece of work, it looks as if it is one rule for Government Ministers and another rule for everybody else?

Penny Mordaunt: From what I know of the situation, I do not think what the hon. Lady says follows. There will be different considerations in different cases. I suggest that she raises this at the next departmental questions if she is concerned about other projects. I will ensure that the Department has heard what she has said today. If she is going to make such accusations, she needs a bit more evidence than that which she has furnished us with today.

Andrew Rosindell: I know that the Leader of the House will be looking forward to next Tuesday, 23 April, which is St George’s day, as we celebrate with the Royal Society of St George, hosted by Mr Speaker in Speaker’s House. Will she ensure that we have a debate in Government time about English affairs? We often hear about Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh affairs, but how about a debate on England? Also, can we please have a public holiday for St George’s day, perhaps combined with May day, so that we have one great celebration for our country?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for affording us all the opportunity to come to the event that he has put together next week and have a jolly good knees-up to celebrate St George’s day. I hope that he has extended the invitation to many Members, although the SNP spokesperson may not wish to attend, given the comments she made earlier about the English flag, or she might need a little encouragement to do so. He is right that we should be celebrating our national, regional and cultural heritage across the counties of England, and I hope that the event next week will give us the opportunity to do so.

Patricia Gibson: In January, the Bank of Scotland branch in Brodick closed. In March, the post office in Brodick closed. In May, the post office in West Kilbride will close. And in October, the Royal Bank of Scotland branch in Largs will close. As banks abandon our towns, especially across North Ayrshire and Arran, and as our postmasters struggle to stay afloat, will the Leader of the House make a statement setting out the importance of access to cash and financial inclusion? Does she share my view that we need minimum service standards for banks and post offices, including physical outlets in our towns?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that important matter. There is that expectation. She will know that, in particular, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has a programme of work and shares good practice about how these services can be maintained—and physically maintained as well—even if particular branches are closing. I will make sure that that Department knows that the hon. Lady may benefit from some advice in that respect, but I know that colleagues from across the House have had similar situations, but have managed to retain access to banking, which is vital for local businesses in particular, and also those services from the Post Office as well.

Philip Hollobone: Mr Deputy Speaker, I bring good news from Kettering, where Northamptonshire police has been pleased to announce that, after five years of its groundbreaking Operation Crooked, burglaries have now been halved. A key feature of this campaign has been that, since 2019, specialist burglary teams have ensured that every burglary victim gets a visit from the police, while the quality of investigations, forensic analysis and intelligence gathering has been improved. May we have a statement from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to congratulate Northamptonshire police and all its officers on this tremendous work and to encourage other police forces to follow Northamptonshire’s example?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing us more good news from Kettering and congratulate him on the work that he is doing there. I will, of course, join him in praising and congratulating Northamptonshire police on this huge achievement, which I know will have taken a great deal of effort and determination on its part. He will know that, since 2010, our communities are safer, with neighbourhood crime such as burglary and robbery down by 48% on roughly the same resource, and a large part of that in recent years has been the additional recruitment of 20,000 more police officers, which means that we are just shy of 150,000 officers in England and Wales, higher than the previous peak before the police uplift. That is a huge achievement and we should praise his local police force for its part in it.

Clive Efford: The Conservatives have cut 21,000 police officers, decimating our local neighbourhood teams. There are now 10,000 fewer police officers and police community support officers in our neighbourhood teams than in 2015. And the percentage of people reporting never seeing a police officer on their street has doubled since 2010. Can we have a debate about the number of police officers and the Conservatives’ claims about what they are doing about it, so that they can explain why they cut 21,000 police officers in the first place? We can also then talk about Labour’s pledge to put a neighbourhood team in every community.

Penny Mordaunt: I think the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong. We have record numbers of police officers. On roughly the same resource—when we leave aside online fraud—we have halved crime. The outliers across the country are in Labour-controlled areas. They are in London, under the current Labour London Mayor, where knife crime and serious and violent crime have soared. They are also in areas such as the west midlands where there is a Labour police and crime commissioner.  The stats speak for themselves. A person is 40% more likely to be a victim of crime if they are in an area that has a Labour police and crime commissioner. Our police have done a tremendous job since 2010: we have halved crime on roughly the same resource. That is what people get with the Conservatives.

Nickie Aiken: Hajj begins in mid-June, when thousands of British Muslims will travel to Saudi Arabia for their pilgrimage to Mecca. Last week, I met City of London Commander Khan who highlighted to me the growing issue around Hajj fraud. Thousands of Brits are being targeted by rogue tour operators and when they get to Saudi Arabia they discover that they have no hotel and no tour. Will the Leader of the House consider a debate in Government time highlighting the growing issue around Hajj fraud and economic fraud in general?

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend has provided her own answer. I thank her for raising awareness of this important issue, and sending a clear message to anyone who might be targeted with such appalling fraud. These kinds of crimes are terrible in any circumstance, but trying to exploit people undertaking this particular pilgrimage is really unpleasant. I thank her for raising the matter. She will know that the Government take it very seriously, and had a recent campaign to combat this type of fraud. I will certainly ensure that all relevant Departments are aware of her campaign, and assist her in any way they can.

Andrew Bridgen: Following the publication of the Cass review and its damning conclusion that children were given unscientific medical advice, does the Leader of the House stand by her statement that
“trans men are men and trans women are women”?—[Official Report, 1 March 2021; Vol. 690, c. 60.]
Does she still believe that this is the starting point and ending point of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and will she make a statement on how we are going to protect our children and young people from dangerous indoctrination by gender ideology?

Penny Mordaunt: When I was Minister for Women and Equalities, I set up the first inquiry looking at why so many children were being referred into trans services. There was a 4,000% increase in the number of girls, for example, who were being referred into trans services. The Government have consistently raised such matters. The Cass review is an important review. The gender recognition consultation that looked at whether we needed to reform the 2004 Act was also an important piece of work for Whitehall. It had a record number of responses—more than 100,000—and although I did not read them all, I read the ones from healthcare professionals. They raised concerns that the rules about referring people into such services were too restrictive and looked only at one particular type of condition as opposed to the raft of conditions that they were dealing with. I hope that work informed Whitehall. It certainly led to other reviews, including the Cass review. I think that was important.
These issues need to be gripped, but while we do so, we need to send a clear message to people who are trans that their rights and their ability to lead a good quality of life are also protected. That is the aim of the current Minister for Equalities. I refer the House to her many statements, including on the provision of same-sex spaces. She has always taken care to mention certainty and support for trans people.

Matt Western: Last summer, I was a lone voice among the Warwickshire MPs in calling for Warwickshire not to be subsumed into the West Midlands Combined Authority under Andy Street. Thank goodness I did. It is forecast by PricewaterhouseCoopers to be the worst-performing economic region in the country. Andy’s trams are not running. We now understand that in eight years he has built only 46 social rent houses—that is six a year—despite 64,000 people being on the waiting list. Last night at a hustings, he said that he did not realise that it was his responsibility, or that there was a need for that housing.
By comparison, Mayor Khan started 11,000 council homes in 2022-23, and the Labour candidate for the west midlands mayoralty, Richard Parker, has promised 2,000 social rent homes a year. Even in Warwick, my little local district council has built more than Andy Street. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for council housing, I ask for a debate in Government time on the importance of delivering social rent housing.

Penny Mordaunt: I think there is a pattern to Labour’s questions here. While we talk about the records in office of Conservative Mayors, the Opposition try to smear them. However, it does afford me the opportunity to recap on Andy Street’s record. He has won £10 billion of investment from central Government, has secured and delivered the 2022 Commonwealth games, has recovered the regional economy after covid, has secured the investment zone, has extended the metro, is making Coventry an all-electric bus city, has reduced and retained low bus fares, and has built more homes for young people and families than any other region. Some 15,690 homes were built in the west midlands last year alone, and it is the only region that is on track for its housing targets. In stark contrast, the Labour London Mayor has missed his targets. Andy has delivered 4,000 apprenticeships and has been a champion for community cohesion in some very difficult times. He is standing on his record; he is standing on the fact that he has stood up and fought for his constituents and those he represents. The London Mayor’s much more deficient record sits in stark contrast.

Anne McLaughlin: Springburn Winter Gardens Trust has submitted a bid to the community ownership fund to stop our winter gardens—once the largest glass house in Scotland—collapsing. Could we have a debate in Government time on the need to protect our built heritage?
Watching and listening from the Public Gallery today was my four-year-old constituent Callie Lang—until she got bored for some reason. I am sure that you care, Mr Deputy Speaker, as do the Leader of the House and I, about girls’ voices being heard. In keeping with that, Callie would like a Bill that guarantees a free annual seaside holiday for all children. She said that she will accept an amendment to apply the legislation just to  children at Scaraway Nursery School in Milton in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House advise Callie on how she might make that happen?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for raising the important work that her constituent does. I notice that my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) is not in his place and is therefore unable to tut, but no one else was tutting, and we welcome Callie to the House today. I will certainly ensure that the relevant Department has heard the ambitions that the hon. Lady has outlined, and that it furnishes her with all the advice it can.

Kevin Brennan: Can the Leader of the House explain what has happened to some of the Government’s flagship law and order Bills on her watch? The Sentencing Bill is nowhere to be seen; in effect it is now the suspended sentencing Bill. The Criminal Justice Bill is now the criminal justice delayed Bill. The House will be aware of her previous career as a magician’s assistant. Can she explain why we are witnessing these baffling disappearing acts?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman knows that I will announce future business in the usual way. I hope to give all Members early sight and warning of when legislation is coming back to the House, and I will continue to do that.

Lucy Powell: rose—

Roger Gale: Order. I understand that the hon. Lady wishes to raise a point of order arising directly from matters that have been raised at business questions. For that reason and that reason alone, I am prepared to take it now in order to ensure that the Leader of the House is here.

Lucy Powell: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to give the Leader of the House the opportunity to clarify something she said in response to me earlier when I asked about the allegations relating to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies). She suggested that some allegations had now been referred to the police. Was she referring to these allegations or to allegations regarding other Members? If it was the latter, I think people outside this place have been given the wrong impression.

Roger Gale: As the hon. Lady has indicated, although that is a point of order, it is not strictly one for the Chair. Given that the Leader of the House wishes to respond, I am quite prepared to permit that as well.

Penny Mordaunt: Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am very happy to clarify. The hon. Lady was asking about a raft of allegations, starting with those relating to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). My understanding is that that particular issue is being looked into by three police forces. I am not aware of any other police investigations.

Alec Shelbrooke: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Earlier, I asked a question relating to Gibraltar, and I feel that it would be remiss of me not to bring the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and mention that I visited Gibraltar on behalf of the Gibraltar Government several years ago.

Roger Gale: Again, that is not strictly a matter of order for the Chair, but it is now a matter of record, and I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I also thank the Leader of the House and the Opposition Front Benchers for their attendance.

Commons Scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords

Procedure Committee

Select Committee statement

Roger Gale: We now move on to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Procedure Committee. Dame Karen Bradley will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement. These should be brief questions, not speeches. I also emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair, not to the relevant Minister. Front Benchers therefore may take part in questioning.

Karen Bradley: I start by adding my own condolences to the many that have been expressed today to Mr Speaker and his family. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding time for this statement and pass my regards to the Chair of that Committee, the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns).
With permission, I would like to make a statement on the Government’s response to the Procedure Committee’s report on Commons scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords, which was published yesterday. Following the appointment of the noble Lord Cameron as Foreign Secretary in November last year, Mr Speaker wrote to the Procedure Committee, asking us to examine how Secretaries of State who sit in the House of Lords could be scrutinised by this House. The Committee published its report on 23 January this year, and following its publication I made a similar statement to this House to explain our conclusions and recommendations. In that statement, I urged the Government to act quickly on the matter, given the strength of feeling across this House. The Government sent their response only after the House had risen for the Easter recess. It is for that reason that the Committee was unable to publish it until yesterday afternoon, once the Committee had met. Despite that, I hope all right hon. and hon. Members have now had the chance to read the Government’s response in full.
It is with regret that I make this statement to inform the House that the Government have rejected our recommendations. The reasons put forward by the Government for rejecting the recommendation that Lords Secretaries of State should be scrutinised by this House at the Bar of the House are that it is “untested” as a method for routine scrutiny, and that our recommendations would have “significant constitutional implications”. I am sorry to say that I find those arguments unconvincing. Our report was clear that while our recommendations may be novel in the modern era, they are not wholly untested. Moreover, our recommendations were limited to this Parliament to deal with issues that this House faces now, without setting a precedent for the future—we were very clear on that. I suggest that the Government have not made the case that our recommendations could have unforeseen constitutional implications, and have failed to adequately set out what they think such implications could be. The Committee is still of the view  that the Government should agree to our recommendation to use the Bar of the House to allow questions to be put directly to the Foreign Secretary by all Members of this House.
In rejecting our recommendations, the Government suggested that there are sufficient mechanisms in place—scrutiny in the House of Lords and in Select Committees of both Houses, as well as responses by other Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office Ministers to Members of this House at departmental questions, statements and urgent questions—to discharge the Foreign Secretary’s accountability to this House. Our report dealt with those points in detail. We were clear that we have great respect for the work that the House of Lords does in its scrutiny of the Government. Moreover, the Foreign Affairs and International Development Committees do excellent work holding the FCDO to account, as do other Committees in both Houses. However, their work complements and adds to the scrutiny that is undertaken in this Chamber; it is not, and cannot be, a substitute for that scrutiny. As we noted in our report, Select Committees and this Chamber have unique mandates, functions and purposes—they are not synonymous. The Government said nothing in their response to make us think again about this matter.
All Members of this House must have the ability to scrutinise FCDO policy by questioning the Foreign Secretary in this place. The alternative proceedings through which the Foreign Secretary has been, and will be, subject to scrutiny have the potential to exclude some Members of this House from being able to conduct effective scrutiny on behalf of their constituents. I suggest that this is an unacceptable state of affairs, and I respectfully submit that the Government’s response misses this key point entirely. Scrutiny by elected MPs on behalf of their constituents is a fundamental part of our modern democratic system, and while I welcome the appointment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to the position of Deputy Foreign Secretary earlier this week, the point still stands that the current arrangements do not allow all Members of this place to put their questions directly to the individual with ultimate responsibility for the work of the FCDO.
Lastly, the Government argue that our proposals risk undermining the constitutional balance between the two Houses. My Committee respectfully disagrees. Our report was clear that our recommendations were to enable scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords at the Bar of the House of Commons, not to require it or to summon such individuals. We recognise and continue to respect the right of the other place to govern its own affairs. However, by rejecting our recommendation on scrutiny at the Bar of the House on this basis, the Government are putting the cart before the horse. They are using concerns about comity to pre-emptively exclude the possibility of even having discussions with the other place about how to facilitate the arrangements we have recommended. The Government’s refusal to engage with our recommendations in a meaningful way means that we will never know whether the other place would be willing to engage with us in facilitating such opportunities for scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords. This is a regrettable situation for us to find ourselves in.
The Government response to our report is most disappointing. It ignores the genuine concerns of many Members of this House that the holder of one of the  highest offices in the land, the Foreign Secretary, is unable to be scrutinised by all the Members of this House. It does so at a time of increased international uncertainty, when the lives of many of our constituents are directly affected by crises abroad, for which the Foreign Secretary holds ultimate ministerial responsibility. The Government response misreads the mood of the House on this matter and undermines the principle of accountability of Ministers to this democratically elected House. I urge the Government to think again on our recommendations and to revisit this matter urgently.

Roger Gale: I thank the right hon. Lady. We will now take questions to the Chair of the Select Committee, and I call the shadow Leader of the House.

Lucy Powell: I thank the Chair and all members of her Committee for their diligent work, which was carried out in good faith in the expectation that their recommendations would be taken forward. Does she agree with me that there is wide support across this House—cross-party support—for her recommendations, and that the Government have misread the mood of the House? What plans does she have for the House to express its view on her Committee’s report and perhaps to take forward its recommendations, despite the Government’s response to them?

Karen Bradley: I thank the shadow Leader of the House for her question. She is correct that we as a Committee took evidence from all Members of this House. We listened to representations and we conducted an all-Member survey. It was very clear from those responses that there was a desire to ensure there were opportunities for proper scrutiny by Members of this House of the Foreign Secretary. We are not as a Committee proposing to do any further work on this matter. As I said in my statement, I urge the Government to rethink their response and perhaps come forward with some other suggestions.

Roger Gale: I call, as a member of the Committee, Patrick Grady.

Patrick Grady: I thank the Chair for her statement. Was it not predictable that this was going to be the Government’s response? As I said in the Adjournment debate I had on this topic just before Easter, if the Government had wanted to make arrangements for the Foreign Secretary to appear at the Bar of the House or be otherwise scrutinised by the House as a whole, they could have brought forward such provisions without any reference to the Procedure Committee. That also applies to the point made earlier about Opposition days. The Government can at any time bring forward recommendations and changes to Standing Orders. Would it not make more sense if the Government presented us as a Committee with their recommendations, which we could scrutinise, rather than asking us to come up with recommendations that they then reject out of hand?

Karen Bradley: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who is a fellow member of the Committee, for his question. I think he is reflecting the sense of frustration that was felt in the Committee when we met yesterday afternoon. It is in the Government’s gift to change any  matters they wish to change. They control the Order Paper and can make such decisions. As a Committee, we stand ready to scrutinise and to be consulted on proposed changes. However, it is often helpful if the Government give us some indication of the changes they may want, so that we can at least spend our time productively in giving advice on those recommendations, rather than see our recommendations rejected out of hand.

Roger Gale: I call, as a member of the Committee, Kevan Jones.

Kevan Jones: I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for her work as Chair of the Committee. She mentioned the announcement this week that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) has been appointed Deputy Foreign Secretary, and she will also know that the Foreign Secretary has specific responsibilities for oversight of MI6. He or she appears before the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I sit on, and obviously the nature of some of those issues cannot be discussed publicly. Does the right hon. Lady have any information on whether the remit of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has been changed so that he can reply to non-secure questions that Members might have, for example on the operation of MI6?

Karen Bradley: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The appointment of a Deputy Foreign Secretary is what happened in the past—there is precedent for that, for example when Lord Carrington was Foreign Secretary and in previous times. It is something that we had been keen to see, because it means that the House has more opportunities to scrutinise a senior member of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office team. I am afraid I do not have sight of the changes that may have been made to the portfolio of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield, and perhaps that is something that the Leader of the House, who is in her place and listening intently, could inform the Committee about at some point.

Clive Efford: In principle, no one should be in government who cannot be scrutinised in the elected Chamber representing the people of this country. That is the principle that all Governments should apply, and I do not think that this appointment should have taken place until that issue was sorted out. Is there a view from the Foreign Secretary himself, Lord Cameron, on whether he should be here answering questions in this Chamber?

Karen Bradley: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but that is definitely above my pay grade.

Richard Foord: The Chair of the Committee has, in the view of the Liberal Democrats, done great work on trying to bring the noble Lord Cameron to the Bar of the House. She is right to say that the last time one of the four great offices of state was occupied by a Member of the other place was 1982. Lord Carrington resigned from the role of Foreign Secretary after Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. He did so partly because Back Benchers in the House of Commons had been warning about that  possibility, and there was a feeling that the Foreign Office had not heeded their warnings under Lord Carrington. Given that the UK’s relations with some of it adversaries are as tense as they have been since the early 1980s, does the right hon. Lady think that the noble Lord Cameron might want to avert such an outcome by answering questions at the Bar of the House?

Karen Bradley: The Committee considered all the points carefully, and looked at the evidence and at precedent. That is why we came to the conclusion that the Bar of the House was the right place for scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords. We were keen to ensure that proper scrutiny could be done by this place, because we as elected representatives will often reflect what our constituents are telling us and what we are seeing on the ground in a way that no other body in this place can do. Members of the other place do extremely good work in scrutinising the Government, but without constituents they are perhaps not able to reflect what we hear from people on the ground. Likewise, members of Select Committees do not generally ask constituency-based questions in their work; they tend to ask questions on a theme or on the overall topics of the day. We have that unique role in this place, and that is why we were keen to ensure that there could be some form of scrutiny. We are disappointed that the Government have rejected that.

Christopher Chope: I thank my right hon. Friend for the work she does on the Committee, and for being so mild-mannered in reporting to the House today the feelings of the Procedure Committee. Does she accept that there is strong anger on the Committee, not so much about the response from the Government—we expected that they might reject our recommendations—but about the nature of that rejection, and the failure to answer any of the points or put forward any detailed justifications for rejecting our recommendations? Does she agree that it almost makes us members of the Committee feel that we are held in contempt by the Leader of the House?

Karen Bradley: I feel that my hon. Friend has made his points effectively, and I thank the Clerks of the Committee for helping me perhaps to tone down the response, based on the Committee meetings we have had. There was also real concern that we did not receive the response before the House rose for the Easter recess, during which we were all focused on our constituencies and not necessarily in Westminster. The need to bring Committee members together and for the Committee to be quorate meant that we were unable to report the response until yesterday. That is another matter of great concern to the Committee.

Charlotte Nichols: I thank the Chair of the Committee, and the Committee for their excellent work on this piece. I am a Back-Bench Member of Parliament, representing a diverse constituency with many diaspora communities from countries that  rarely get much of a hearing in this place, such as Sudan, Bosnia and Kurdistan. Does the right hon. Lady share my concern that whereas the Secretary of State is an experienced statesperson with knowledge of the different areas across the Foreign Office, having more junior Ministers represent the Department here means that they do not have that expertise across the piece? It is right that all Members of this place are able to question him accordingly.

Karen Bradley: I think that all Ministers in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office are exemplary and carry out their roles with distinction. The hon. Lady is correct to say that the Secretary of State has a unique role in any Department, and they have the overarching view. That is why Select Committees call in the Secretary of State at least three times a year for an overarching evidence session on all the work of a Department. I am a great fan of the noble Lord Cameron and delighted that he is in his role. I think he represent the United Kingdom superbly, and I would love the opportunity to see him at the Bar of the House. It would be incredible to see him, because he would answer questions thoroughly and rigorously, and we as Members of Parliament would take much from those sessions back to our constituents.

David Lammy: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The seriousness of what we have just heard from the Chair of the Procedure Committee cannot be understated. The world is more divided and dangerous than at any moment I can remember in my 24 years in Parliament. We have war in Ukraine, war in the middle east, and an increasingly assertive China. Last night the Government effectively rejected the Procedure Committee’s recommendation for the Foreign Secretary to take questions from this House, and it is untenable that in this time of disorder, the Foreign Secretary—a great office of state for a reason—refuses to be accountable to this House.
My party thought that having a Foreign Secretary in the Lords was absurd 100 years ago in the days of Lord Curzon, and the appointment of the first ever Deputy Foreign Secretary this week is an unconstitutional sop. We have not needed it in 223 years of this Parliament, and he is not the man who meets the Foreign Secretaries of Israel, of our Arab partners, or of the United States. He simply does not have the accountability of the Foreign Secretary. Given what we have heard, and given the strength of feeling across this House, what now to get the Foreign Secretary to take questions from Members of Parliament at this most dangerous of geopolitical moments?

Roger Gale: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the point of order and for giving notice of it, but he has heard the statement and the exchanges on the Select Committee report, including the responses by the right hon. Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Dame Karen Bradley), and I am afraid that there is nothing I can add to them from the Chair. I thank the right hon. Lady for her statement and for answering seven questions.

Backbench Business

Access to Redress Schemes

[Relevant documents: Correspondence from the Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts to the Comptroller and Auditor General, on Government compensation and financial redress schemes, reported to the House on 29 January 2024.]

Richard Foord: I beg to move,
That this House recognises the challenges faced by individuals and businesses in accessing effective dispute resolution and obtaining redress in cases of injustice; believes that the Government needs to address these specific challenges, namely a fragmented and inconsistent redress landscape; considers statutory guidance to be an essential measure to ensure compensation and redress schemes follow common principles and lead to fair and independent outcomes; and calls on the Government to create statutory guidance with common principles for setting up and operating a redress scheme.
It is my honour to move the motion that stands in my name and that of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr Wragg). I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I also thank the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), for her recent correspondence with the Comptroller and Auditor General, calling on public bodies to have redress schemes that are effective, timely, proportionate and fair.
Samuel Beckett famously wrote:
“Try again. Fail again. Fail better.”
What if we learned nothing from our previous failure? What if we simply failed, failed again and approached the failure as in the past, only to fail a bit differently and with many of the same mistakes as before? That is the situation we face with compensation and redress following scandals.
I imagine that every Member of this House will have received correspondence from a constituent who has been failed and treated unfairly in the wake of a scandal. Rather than being able to access swift and fair redress, they have instead been subjected to further hardship, delays and unfair treatment. Sometimes that mistreatment can be as devastating as the pain caused initially by the scandal. There has rightly been significant attention nationally in recent months on the Post Office Horizon scandal, and in particular on the various schemes set up to provide redress to the victims of what was the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history.
A sub-postmaster of a post office in my constituency was one of the hundreds wrongful convicted. Janine Powell was wrongfully accused of stealing £74,000 from her post office branch in Tiverton. She was subsequently sacked and arrested, before being convicted at a trial in Exeter in 2008. She described feeling “confused; dismayed; numb”. That is because Ms Powell was sentenced to 18 months in prison, serving five months. She was sent to prison just two days after her daughter’s 10th birthday. She said that the hardest part of her wrongful imprisonment was leaving her children. She said:
“I’ve missed out on doing things with them—I can’t get that back.”
No amount of money could ever make up for what happened to Ms Powell, but compensation can at least try to make up for some of the loss they faced. Sadly, the various Post Office compensation schemes that have existed have failed to provide swift and fair redress, as I know from another constituent case that I am dealing with.
According to the law firm Howe and Co, which represents 150 sub-postmasters, the compensation scheme
“continues to be exceptionally slow…and refuses to entertain applications from persons who are plainly entitled to apply”.
This afternoon, I hope to outline that the Post Office case is but one example of a wider problem. No guidance exists on when and how compensation schemes should be established or what an overseeing body should look like. That means that each scheme has its own unique and dysfunctional set of rules. Reinventing the wheel each time a scandal emerges means that victims are failed by the very system that is meant to right the wrongs of the past.

Christian Wakeford: The hon. and gallant Member is making an important point about how we seem to have unique circumstances in trying to overcome some of these issues. For example, the sodium valproate issue was raised through Baroness Cumberlege’s “First Do No Harm” report. As with the infected blood scandal and the Horizon scandal, it has been outlined time after time that redress should be forthcoming. However, the Government again seem to be dragging their feet. Why does he think that would be?

Richard Foord: The hon. Member is exactly right to draw a thread between several of these scandals. That is partly because when a new scandal emerges, the organisation responsible is often the organisation charged with redress. Andrew Bailey, while chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority, said in 2017 that
“it just does not seem to be sensible that, every time one of these things happens, we have to set up something new.”
Beyond the Post Office schemes, we have heard criticism both here and in the press on the infected blood inquiry, as the hon. Member mentioned, and Windrush. That criticism has pointed to intolerable delays or the problematic features that often let the offending firm or institution off the hook.

Alistair Carmichael: I am interested to develop my hon. Friend’s thought about the Financial Conduct Authority. If I am able, I will speak at greater length about it later in the debate. It administers the Financial Services Compensation Scheme, which is a fund set up by levies on financial services companies themselves. It is the maladministration of the FCA or a lack of proper regulation that often leads to these claims being brought. Essentially, the people paying for the scheme have to do so because of the incompetence of the FCA.

Richard Foord: My right hon. Friend is exactly right. The FCA is not directly accountable to Parliament, but is accountable to Parliament through the Treasury. I, too, have had constituents finding themselves in a David and Goliath scenario, trying to tackle issues of unfairness with the FCA.
Likewise, in finance, we have seen the mis-selling of interest rate hedging products and widespread financial misconduct against small and medium-sized enterprises by the Royal Bank of Scotland, for example. Last year, the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking conducted the first systematic review of compensation schemes in the UK and found flaws common to several of them. Schemes are frequently blighted by unnecessary complexity, delays and a huge emotional and legal burden on victims. Often schemes are shrouded in secrecy and lack proper independence.

Deidre Brock: I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech carefully, and he is making some excellent points. Will he join me in deploring the methods by which organisations avoid their responsibilities to many of our constituents? For example, the business of my constituent George Dosoo, LD Partnership, took on a loan from RBS, now NatWest. In 2012, he discovered that a sum of £150,000 was removed without authority from the partnership account. Despite George obtaining recent legal opinion indicating that his case has merit, NatWest maintains that the case is time-barred and will not reopen it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that time-barring is another device that is far too often used by businesses and institutions to deliberately undermine our constituents’ ability to obtain recourse?

Richard Foord: The hon. Member is right about time-barring. I have a similar case with a constituent of mine, which might chime with hers. Nigel Cairns is trapped in what he describes as a
“complete nightmare scenario, with no way of escape”
after egregious misconduct by a bank. In 2007, Nigel took out a loan of £350,000 from HSBC. He had his house demolished in readiness to rebuild. In preparation for the work, the bank declared the termination and return of the loan. That was in 2007, when the financial crisis was very much with us. The bank subsequently agreed to reinstate the loan, but altered some of the terms and conditions so that the interest rate became double what Nigel had originally agreed to. After 10 years of repayments, the bank declared that unless he could sell the property or repay the loan, it would have to foreclose on him. The Financial Ombudsman Service refused to look into the matter initially and subsequently Mr Cairns received only £1,500 for the stress and anxiety of the case.
The APPG’s review, looking across 12 compensation schemes, found that over the past 20 years, the number of people affected amounted to a little over 78,000 people. When we consider some of the harrowing cases we are describing today, that number is thankfully quite small, but it says to us that it is a small enough number that these people could have timely redress and compensation, if only we had a body that could sort it out. That brings me on to another example: infected blood. During business questions this morning, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), as she always does on a Thursday, drove home on behalf of her constituents the need to compensate promptly those people affected by the infected blood  scandal. In the last 24 hours, we have heard of a proposed Government  amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill to try to bring about compensation. I completely agree with the right hon. Member that by not setting a deadline for that compensation, we allow this issue to run and run. In the other place, the Liberal Democrat peer Baroness Brinton sought to take that up with the Government, and proposed an amendment that was much more vigorous in setting a timeframe for compensation, but the Government chose not to adopt it.
I have a constituent whose friend who has been affected by the infected blood scandal. Some of the tales that she has passed on are really harrowing. Her friend said:
“In my 20s I was planning my funeral and feeling like I was contaminated and filthy. I met and married someone prepared to date a woman with poisoned blood.”
She speaks of how it caused a
“host of long-term devastating side effects”.
She continued:
“I lost my career as an IT consultant, it made me infertile so I have been unable to have a family, and we had we had to stop IVF and surrogacy attempts because I became too ill to be a parent. I’ve had brain, body, psychological and emotional impacts from this virus. And then decades of exhausted fighting for an evasive and oft-denied justice, which caused its own damage, including most recently the end of my marriage.”
Such people deserve to be compensated promptly. They do not need the stress and worry of a scheme that always seems to roll out into the future, and of having to fight at every turn.
Mass redress schemes are set up on an ad hoc basis. They are voluntary, and established to tackle a specific scandal, following failure of a given organisation’s internal complaints procedures. How do we ensure that the victims of our largest and most damaging scandals, and any unfortunate future victims, are protected from unfair treatment and appropriately compensated? We need the framework for redress to be improved to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes again. This debate is a call to action for Ministers. The Government must establish a clear framework based on best practice.
The HBOS Reading compensation scheme is another example. In 2017, after 15 years, six individuals were sentenced to a cumulative 47 years in prison for their role in a fraud that left its victims, in the words of the sentencing judge, “cheated, defeated and penniless”. Eight years on, we have had more than two years of the discredited Griggs review, and a further two years reviewing the review and coming up with new recommendations. We are now in the fourth year of the Foskett panel. We would think that by now that we would have got it right, but all the perpetrators of the crime are out of prison, the victims have yet to be compensated, and serious questions remain about the panel.
There is a set of underlying principles that would establish a common-sense bedrock for any compensation scheme and how it should be built.

Andrew Bridgen: On the composition of the Foskett panel and the huge delays in the compensation due to those defrauded in the HBOS scandal, there have been allegations that Lloyds bank had a big part in deciding who was appointed to the panel. Would that not explain the delays, and why people are not being paid the compensation that they believe they deserve?

Richard Foord: The hon. Member is right that in redress schemes, the perpetrator of the injustice is often charged with trying to put it right. Of course, the perpetrator has a vested interest—indeed, it is not even vested; it is just an interest—in trying to pay out as little as possible, and in accepting as little culpability as it can.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Member agree that many victims are annoyed by the way that these schemes become a feeding frenzy for lawyers, who in many cases are the only people who ultimately benefit? What really sticks in the throat of many victims is that many lawyers may be getting more out of the schemes than the individuals affected.

Richard Foord: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for his intervention. Probably nobody in this place knows more about the Horizon compensation schemes than he does. Lee Castleton, one of the sub-postmasters affected by the scandal, said that during the past 25 years,
“£135 million has been paid to some of the victims, but we’ve had £150 million plus paid to lawyers.”
We need a set of underlying principles. We need: a collaborative approach and process; timeliness; independence; recognition of adversity; transparency; broader eligibility; greater accessibility and legal costs; a clear appeals mechanism; and, finally, fairness and efficiency.

Christian Wakeford: The hon. and gallant Member is kind in giving way. Moving back to the sodium valproate scandal, we keep saying that justice delayed is justice denied, but in that case, it is not only children but grandchildren who are impacted, because it looks as though the effects of sodium valproate disorder are being passed on to grandchildren as well. Schemes need to be not only fair but pragmatic, so that once compensation is delivered, they can still be open to claims. I say that thinking of the further after-effects of one of the biggest scandals in the health service since thalidomide.

Richard Foord: The hon. Member is exactly right about how younger generations can be affected. We have recently seen attempts by some Horizon victims, and indeed children of victims, to seek compensation. The tragedy of his point about justice delayed being justice denied is that older victims of these scandals are dying before they see that justice, and before enjoying any of the compensation that they deserved.
I set out nine underlying principles that would establish a common-sense bedrock for a compensation scheme. To deliver those principles for fair redress and to guarantee independent oversight, we need an arm’s length body to design and adjudicate the schemes. The existing voluntary mechanisms for redress are far too fragmented. We need a standing, independent body that can provide consistency for victims of scandals—no matter the sector—which can be activated whenever a new scandal emerges. It should be constituted of experts, so that it guarantees independence of judgment, and should be accountable directly to Parliament for the expenditure of any public funds and for its overall conduct. Critically, victims must also have representation on the panels.
The structure would come at no extra cost to the taxpayer, as the current compensation framework often proves lengthy and costly for both victim and taxpayer.  Taken together, the nine UK redress schemes—whether active or completed—studied by the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking have cost at least £3.7 billion. That figure covers not only the amount of compensation that has gone to victims, but, as we have discussed, the fees to solicitors, accountants and firms that have engaged to undertake reviews—and indeed firms that are reviewing reviews. More often than not, victims are left feeling cheated. They eventually cling on to some sort of late, inadequate consolation of redress and compensation. In the case of the Post Office, many of the 555 sub-postmasters who were exposed to the scandal have still received little compensation, because most of the money was swallowed up.
We need lessons to be learned from the array of scandals that I have set out. I am curious to hear what the Minister has to say about the proposal for an arm’s length body to deal with situations of the kind that I and right hon. and hon. Members have described.

Christopher Chope: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord), and I am grateful to him for introducing this important subject. I am sorry that it has not attracted more attention from hon. Members on both sides of the House.
How often have we said, “There is nothing new under sun”? I will start my remarks by referring to August 1975. Tanya Price had a whooping cough vaccine at the age of six months. Shortly after, she developed convulsions, and 18 months later, she was described as a “motionless and expressionless being” in a debate in this House by her MP, the late Robert Adley, who was my predecessor but one as MP for Christchurch, although at that time the constituency was Christchurch and Lymington. Robert Adley worked tirelessly for months to try to obtain redress from the health service for Tanya’s injuries, which were caused by the whooping cough vaccine.
That was 48 years ago, under a Labour Government, but little has changed in the Government’s institutional reluctance to admit to medical failures and institute redress schemes. Robert Adley described fighting Tanya’s battle as fighting the NHS, which he described as being like
“sparring with a giant octopus.”
That was all those years ago, but I do not see that the situation has changed. In his Adjournment debate in the House of Commons on 22 March 1977, Robert Adley said:
“This fight has been going on for a long time. Certainly in the last four years a group of parents have sought to get what they see as justice for their children but they have had precious little satisfaction. The battle is in many ways a repetition of the thalidomide debate…The result is decaying confidence in all the immunisation programmes. It represents a flirtation with tragedy, particularly when most of the other vaccines appear to be safe, harmless and have little or no disadvantageous side effects.”
He rightly severely criticised
“the position adopted by the Secretary of State in his refusal to consider compensation, and until…recently, his refusal…at least…to discuss the problem openly”.—[Official Report, 22 March 1977; Vol. 928, c. 1244.]
It would be wonderful to say that things have moved on. One of the consequences of the thalidomide scandal was the setting up of the royal commission headed by  Lord Pearson, which took some five years to report, eventually doing so in 1978. It was set up following the Robens Committee on Safety and Health at Work, and in the light of concern about thalidomide. When the Pearson report was published, it was welcomed by the then Prime Minister as a comprehensive review. It was designed to remove unnecessary litigation, time delays and all the rest when getting redress for people who had suffered medical injuries induced by vaccines or other drugs. Paragraph 1,398—it was a long report—recommended the following:
“We concluded that there is a special case for paying compensation for vaccine damage where vaccination is recommended by a public authority and is undertaken to protect the community. We had reached this conclusion when we were asked by the Government for our views.”
The Pearson Committee also recommended strict liability for vaccine damage.
Sadly, those recommendations were not implemented, although we did get the vaccine damage payments legislation of 1979. I have been campaigning to get that legislation brought up to date, so that it is relevant to the circumstances of all those who have suffered loss and damage as a result of doing the right thing and taking their covid-19 vaccine. It has been an uphill struggle. The most recent information I have is that there are so many applications under the vaccine damage payment scheme that the Government cannot cope. In three years, only 163 out of more than 9,000 claims have been successful—those were the figures as at 31 January. Of those claims, 4,000 were still awaiting a resolution; 2,000 have been outstanding for more than six months, and some for more than 18 months. That is directly damaging to all those people who are thinking of engaging in civil claims, which the Government keep advising victims to do.
Making a civil claim against a large multinational pharmaceutical company—or the Government, for that matter—is an expensive business. I have a constituent whose father has the £120,000 compensation, but for whom that is wholly inadequate because of the severity and longevity of the injuries and disabilities that he sustained as a result of the vaccine. He is finding it nigh on impossible to get access to justice, because solicitors will not take up his calls. Even starting an action will cost tens of thousands of pounds. That is an intolerable situation, and one which, all those years ago, Lord Pearson was trying to avoid.
The Government’s feeble response is, “If you think you’ve been injured by a vaccine, go and seek compensation through the courts.” It does not work quite like that, as sadly has been seen by all those people whose cases it has already been established were caused by vaccines. One would think that if the vaccine damage payment scheme has established that an individual’s damage was caused by the vaccine, as night follows day, the Government would concede liability in a civil action. Far from it; they insist that individuals must fight the case before the courts.

Kevan Jones: It is about power, is it not? As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, the individual does not have the financial means or expertise to take forward those cases against either a corporation or a Government. In the Post Office scandal, the Post Office spent £100 million  of our public money defending a case that they knew they would not win, because they were trying to stop the truth coming out and to bankrupt and stop the individuals from concluding the case.

Christopher Chope: That is right. These are deep-seated institutional failures. This is not a party political issue, but one that affects everyone in this country. This House is unable to persuade Governments and the officials serving them to get real about what many people are suffering as a result of the delays. It seems as though the Government’s policy, perhaps led by the Treasury, is always to postpone the inevitable. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton referred to the contaminated blood scandal. I find it unacceptable that those people whose cases have been established as deserving proper compensation are still waiting. There are similar cases in the Post Office scandal, as the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, and in the sodium valproate case, which has given rise to huge reports, which I hope briefly to come to later.
Going back to the issue with which I am primarily concerned, because I chair the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, there are now getting on for 10,000 claims under the scheme. Almost half are yet to be dealt with, so people are waiting for their claims to be resolved. Under the system that operates, if their claim is rejected by the independent panel, they have the right to have their case reviewed. That process itself generates further delays, sometimes in excess of a year. Meanwhile, there is a three-year limitation on being able to bring civil actions from the time the cause of the civil action arose.
I raised this issue with the Prime Minister in a private meeting and at Prime Minister’s questions a few weeks ago. I am pleased to say that, following that, I have a meeting set up with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care next week. But I will not hold my breath, because I just do not see any willingness on the part of officialdom, even if there was willingness on the part of Ministers, to address these outrageous injustices. It goes to the heart of trust in public service and in Government if people cannot trust the Government to do the right thing. If they take the vaccine and it turns out to have been very bad for their health, the deal should be—it always used to be—that the Government look after them and see them right, but that is not what is happening. Instead, those people are being put through the ringer, and enormous amounts of bureaucracy and time are being wasted, and to very little effect—except that the Treasury can probably say, “Well, we can’t actually guarantee that we will have to spend this amount of money now.”
Years ago, when I was a shadow Treasury Minister, I looked at the issues arising from the Equitable Life scandal. That was a failure by the Treasury’s own team of regulators to protect investors in pension schemes under Equitable Life. At one stage they were thought to be as good as investing in the Consolidated Fund. You may remember, Mr Deputy Speaker, that everybody was joining in having Equitable Life pensions. Well, the regulator was asleep on the job. The ombudsman found that that was the situation and ordered compensation. The Government refused compensation and said that they would make ex-gratia payments. As is the case today, we know that much of the money that was eventually set aside has not yet been delivered to the victims of the  Equitable Life scandal, and that the Treasury is refusing to distribute the money, saying “Well, that is basically a win for the Treasury.” Is it surprising that confidence in our institutions and in government—with a small “g”—is rapidly diminishing?
Today’s debate is of fundamental importance. I hope that the Cabinet Minister, when he responds, will come up with some specific proposals on what will be done in relation to all the individual cases that will be referred to in this debate, as well as dealing with the deep-seated institutional problems to which I have referred. The Minister without Portfolio, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), with whom I have previously raised this matter in Cabinet Office questions, and who at one stage I thought would respond to this debate, is charged with ensuring that we address the issue of the time bar on covid-19 vaccine damage claims. I would be very grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister if, when he responds to the debate, he can give us some positive news on that point, even if not on many others.
The covid vaccine damage payment scheme is not a strict liability scheme, and it is not even a compensation scheme, but it is better than nothing. Why is it, however, that the £120,000 maximum payment under the scheme has not been updated since 2007? It would now be about £200,000 if updated. Why are we updating everything else in line with inflation, but not the vaccine damage payment scheme for people for whom taking a vaccine was disastrous? Again, we cannot get any answers out of the Treasury or the Government. Sometimes there are expressions of sympathy, but they are not much use. What we want is action. What justification can there be for eroding the value of vaccine damage payments to the extent that I have referred to?
The Cumberlege report, “Independent Medicines and Medical Devices Safety Review”, was set up in 2018 in response to concerns about the Primodos hormone pregnancy test, the use of sodium valproate in pregnancy and vaginal mesh. The review, which was led by Baroness Cumberlege, published its report in July 2020. It made a number of serious and compelling recommendations, including the establishment of an independent redress agency. If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who introduced the debate, thinks that the Government are going to respond positively to the suggestions he put forward, I just ask him to look at the record. That was an ex-Conservative Health Minister making a clear recommendation, on page 11, to set up an independent redress agency:
“A new independent Redress Agency for those harmed by medicines and medical devices should be created based on models operating effectively in other countries. The Redress Agency will administer decisions using a non-adversarial process with determinations based on avoidable harm looking at systemic failings, rather than blaming individuals.”
How long did it take for the Government to respond to that report? They published their response not in 2020 but in July 2021, exactly one year later, which fits the pattern we are discussing. It took them a year to respond to the report and they cursorily rejected its recommendation for a new redress agency, stating:
“We do not accept this recommendation. We do not believe that a redress agency would make products safer and support our commitment to patient safety. We also believe it is already possible for government and others to provide redress where this is considered necessary, the government therefore has no plans to establish an independent redress agency.”
It took the Government a year to prepare that wording and explanation. All one can do, really, is despair. There is an opportunity today for the Minister to say, “Well, that was all under a previous Government. Now we have a new Government and they will accept all the recommendations of the Cumberlege report.”
The Cumberlege report also recommended that discretionary schemes should be established for sodium valproate, hormone pregnancy tests and pelvic mesh. That would
“provide discretionary payments for the costs of additional needs”
caused by the harms associated with those products. The Government response also rejected that recommendation, noting:
“Patients have the right to take healthcare providers to court for clinical negligence, or manufacturers to court for product liability.”
It further explains on page 23:
“While the government is sympathetic to the experiences of those patients who gave evidence to the report, our primary focus is on improving future medicines and medical devices safety. It is therefore crucial that we focus government funds on initiatives that directly improve future safety (including specialist mesh centres and support for families affected by medicines in pregnancy). For this reason, redress schemes will not be established in response to recommendation 4.”
That was the situation in relation to the hapless individuals who were at the wrong end of that particular NHS procedure. More recently, and before we have got as far as any inquiries into it, we have been faced with the prospect of having to deal with the scandal of all those young people who are living with the consequences of being given puberty blockers at the behest, if not the recommendation, of the NHS. When Sir Chris Whitty was asked about that on the radio earlier this week, he seemed totally unapologetic, almost to the point of diffidence, although he was insistent that we should do something about people who were engaging in smoking tobacco or vapes. So another compensation issue will arise in relation to all those people who were persuaded by the NHS to do the wrong thing.
One recommendation that did come out of the Cumberlege review was for the establishment of—this sounded really great—a patient safety commissioner for England. When, in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, I approached Dr Hughes and asked whether she would take up the case of the victims of covid-19 vaccines, she was very sympathetic, but said—and this comes back to the issue of the culture—that she had only the equivalent of one man and a dog in her department. She was being starved of the resources that would enable her to fulfil the remit that she had been given by the Government, which, again, was absolutely intolerable. She explained that she did not have time to deal with the vaccine damage issue because, perfectly reasonably, she was concentrating on sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. On 7 February this year she published her report setting out further recommendations for redress in relation to those matters, including a recommendation for the creation of an independent redress scheme to provide both financial and non-financial redress. The Government have not yet responded to that report; perhaps the Minister will respond to it today. In February, in response to a parliamentary question, the Health Minister responsible said:
“The Government is now carefully considering the… recommendations, and will respond substantively in due course.”
That is just not good enough, especially as the Government seem to be relying on some very feeble initiatives to which they have drawn attention.
There is now—this is exciting news, Madam Deputy Speaker—a new risk acknowledgment form to be completed by those for whom valproate is prescribed. There is also a “claims gateway” on the NHS Resolution website for those wishing to embark on clinical negligence claims. The Hughes report criticises these arrangements, and criticises the “claims gateway” description because there is no new legal framework to enable people to engage in litigation and no guarantee of help with legal aid. We hear that a child who challenged the decision by a north London comprehensive in relation to the wearing of religious symbols received legal aid money amounting to £150,000. How was that possible, when people who want redress because they have been done down by the national health service do not get anything at all?
In the foreword to her report, Dr Hughes says
“the case for redress had already been made by the First Do No Harm review so my report would primarily focus on ‘how’ to provide redress rather than ‘why’.”
I hope that, in his response today, the Minister will accept that the Government should now focus on how to provide redress rather than why redress is needed. In her foreword, Dr Hughes also says:
“All those we spoke to have approached this process with openness and goodwill despite the considerable challenges they face. As time progresses, these challenges intensify and, understandably, there is now a growing sense of frustration and anger among patients. Confidence in the government to do the right thing is eroding.
Over the years, while these patients have been suffering, I have seen other healthcare scandals in this country rightly receive recognition and redress, from thalidomide to vCJD and, most recently, the infected blood scandal. Fairness demands that those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh receive the recognition and redress to meet their needs.”
If the Government agree with that, why do they not say so now? Why are they continuing to kick the can down the road and deny people access to the compensation that they rightfully deserve?
I have spoken for longer than I expected, Madam Deputy Speaker, but, as I have said, there is a long history to this. I hope it will not be another 48 years before another Member of Parliament for Christchurch stands up and says, “48 years ago, a former Member for Christchurch was arguing this very point in the House.” Let us learn from history. Let us not be complacent; let us get angry for action.

Marion Fellows: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I learnt about many different redress schemes, many of which I had not even considered, so he has done the House a service this afternoon. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord): it is a real pleasure to be able to speak in such an important debate, and I thank him for introducing it.
When injustice has occurred, and particularly in cases of widespread injustice, it is imperative that those who are wronged are provided with meaningful avenues of recourse. Proper justice cannot be achieved until victims  receive the redress to which they are entitled, but as we have heard this afternoon, time and again that simply does not happen. What we often see is an excessively bureaucratic process administered by the party at fault, moving at a snail’s pace while the victims’ redress is minimised and they continue to suffer. Indeed, someone said to me just today, “The folk in suits and boardrooms always seem to benefit from the misery and hardship of others, while the actual victims are last in the queue for redress.”
The right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) referred earlier to the number of lawyers who had benefited from the scandal involving Post Office Ltd while the victims themselves had not received proper compensation. We are all painfully aware of the well-documented issues that have plagued various compensatory schemes in the United Kingdom. Others have already mentioned the Windrush, infected blood, vaccinations and, of course, the most widespread miscarriage of justice in British legal history, the Post Office Horizon scandal. Without proper redress, justice is denied for victims, who cannot find closure for what is often a deeply traumatic chapter of their lives.
Through my work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on post offices, I am sadly all too familiar with the suffering of Horizon victims, who have shouldered the burden and have had to fight tooth and nail to get the financial redress they are entitled to. Despite everything, they are still being subjected to humiliating and derisory offers. Even Alan Bates, who valiantly led the campaign for justice for sub-postmasters, and took on the Post Office and won, recently spoke of the pitiful offer of redress he received. He highlighted to the Business and Trade Committee the perennial delay and the deadlines missed by the Post Office and the Government, who are administering the three compensation schemes. Similarly, campaigner Christopher Head, the youngest horizon victim, told me that the offer he received was just a tiny fraction of what he and Government-appointed forensic accountants had estimated he was entitled to.
I regularly meet sub-postmaster victims in Motherwell and Wishaw, and to see the effect on individuals at first hand is truly awful. Despite my repeatedly advising them to apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme because many of them were not prosecuted, they want nothing to do with any of the schemes, because they feel traumatised by what they have already gone through and the thought of dealing directly with Post Office Ltd again causes them great hurt.
The application forms for the redress schemes for Horizon are legally complex. Even Dan Neidle, a legal expert, has said that he would require legal advice when filling them out, and the amount of money given by Post Office Ltd to victims is derisory and token. As has already been said, however, lawyers are making millions of pounds from the misery of others. In addition, Post Office Ltd did not make it clear on the forms that applicants could claim for damage to their reputation, meaning that many folk have already settled for far less than they should have. Further, there is the absence of an option to claim punitive damages, which Mr Neidle says a lawyer would spot immediately but a layperson would not, and it is really difficult to come back on this.
Shockingly, Post Office Ltd has continued to attempt to suppress the truth by warning sub-postmasters who received an offer under the HSS that they could not legally mention compensation terms to anyone, including  other applicants, the press, their family or their friends. That was totally inaccurate and highlights the need for an independent adjudicator to provide oversight. The Minister has said on the Floor of the House that no one will be pursued for speaking about Horizon compensation, but that does not help someone who is already traumatised. It took one of my constituents about 10 years to admit that he had been paying into his post office and had taken out another mortgage to try to cover the costs. It is ridiculous that, on top of everything else, people were asked to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
An applicant to the HSS has described the process of trying to get fair redress as “soul-destroying”. We have already heard that Lee Castleton has shown that lawyers are making more money than the victims of Horizon. If any good has come out of the Horizon IT scandal, it is that the affair has demonstrated the need for statutory guidance and for an independent oversight body to administer compensation schemes, as has been called for already today. For that reason, I support the motion. The Government must create statutory guidance, with clear principles for operating a redress scheme. It will save victims of future scandals—there will be future scandals—from the additional pain and suffering that Horizon, infected blood, Windrush and vaccination victims have had to endure.
I am hopeful about yesterday’s announcement of Government amendments to the Victims and Prisoners Bill that would establish an arm’s length body to administer the infected blood compensation scheme, regulations around payment, application procedures and appeals. I sincerely hope that the Government are finally learning from the failure of redress schemes in the past.
Last month, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s report on Women Against State Pension Inequality found that thousands of women born in the 1950s are entitled to compensation. That could and should lead to the payment en masse of financial redress to the WASPI women, who have campaigned tirelessly for years. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) has secured an important debate on redress for the WASPI women. It is essential that any compensation scheme that is set up to remedy this injustice is administered fairly, independently, transparently and efficiently. If lessons are not learned from the failures of redress schemes such as the one for Horizon victims, proper justice will not be achieved and thousands of victims will have been failed by the UK Government again.
I am looking forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch that it is really difficult to understand why more MPs are not here to stand up for their constituents, regardless of whatever scandal they have been involved in and whatever compensation scheme to which they are looking for redress. I hope the Minister is listening carefully, and I hope to hear a good response later on.

Kevan Jones: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who has done fantastic work in this area; on occasion, we have been joined at the hip in our approach to the Post Office. I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) for opening the debate, which is very timely. I agree with the hon.  Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that it is disappointing that there are not more Members here. Like him, I remember when Thursdays were full days, but now they seem to be optional extras for Members of Parliament—that is showing both my age and his. I declare an interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board.
I congratulate the APPG on producing the report, which identifies the unbalanced power relationship when the citizen comes up against the mighty state or corporate world. We have compensation schemes when things go wrong, but to get to the truth in the first place usually takes a number of years—the Post Office Horizon scandal is a good example—so the victims have already fought to try to reach that point. In many cases, the victims—certainly those of the Post Office scandal, and others too—want compensation, but most of those I speak to also want the truth and an acknowledgment that they have been damaged, through no fault of their own, in the case of the Horizon scandal by the Post Office, and in the case of some of the banking scandals by the disgraceful activities and greed of corporations.
As I say, it is regrettable that in most cases the victims spend years trying to get redress. When there is public acknowledgment that something has gone wrong, they are usually at the back of the queue and forgotten about when compensation schemes are produced, which is one of the issues that the APPG report highlights. When we are designing compensation or redress schemes, we should put the victims at the centre. They are mainly over-bureaucratic and complicated, not just for the victims but for those trying to administer them, who in many cases are trying to do a good job but get bogged down in the detail, even when we try to take the lawyers out of the process.
One of the hurtful things for many individuals is that legal costs usually take up more of the financial pot than what goes to the victims. I will talk a little later about the Horizon compensation scheme, but the postal services Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), is trying to cut through that knot by having single pots with fixed sums. That would not only make it easier for victims to understand the scheme, but cut the duration and expense of legal proceedings, both for the victim and for the Government. The Minister has been criticised by some parties for doing that, but I think it is a good step forward.
However, even when we get schemes that we think should be easy to administer, we get the greed of certain lawyers. As the hon. Member for Christchurch did, I am going to give a historical example: the mineworkers’ compensation scheme. In the end, I think that scheme paid out over £3 billion for victims of vibration white finger and coal dust. It should have been quite simple to administer, because it had basically a chart with the number of years that someone had worked and the effect, in terms of the amount of damage that had been done, but we saw a feeding frenzy of lawyers, who, not content that they were getting their legal costs paid by the Government, preyed upon the victims to deduct money from their compensation. People might think that I am a bit of an anorak on this subject, but that was one of my earlier campaigns: Lord Mann, who was the hon. Member for Bassetlaw at the time, and I exposed the greed of not only the lawyers but, sadly, some trade unions—in my case, the Durham area of the National Union of Mineworkers.
These schemes should be quite simple to operate, but every time we have a scandal we go back to the drawing board and reinvent the wheel. That, I think, is the problem. I am not sure that we could design a scheme that could cover every single instance, but we could certainly have some foundations on which to build. I have seen this at first hand on the advisory board. I give credit to the civil servants in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who are trying to administer the scheme, but they have gone back to square one. In the early days of the advisory board, I was actually referring back to the mineworkers’ compensation scheme as a way of trying to simplify the system. I think that we need from the Government, in response to this report, some work to look at getting in place a bare framework for compensation schemes that could be adopted when we get these types of scandals.
I understand that in all this there are worries about the financial implications, and I sympathise with the Minister, because he has the Treasury hovering in the background. However, if we get to a situation where we are paying out more in legal fees than to victims, surely it would be simpler to cut out the middleman and pay the money directly to the victims. That framework, which I think the APPG refers to, needs to be put in place as a matter of urgency.
There is another thing that always strikes me, which I have seen in the Post Office scandal. Frankly, I do not blame the victims. Do they trust the Post Office one iota? No, they do not. Would I, if I had been through what they have been through? No, I would not. It seems that, every time, it is the people who were involved in the system who determine not only how the scheme is designed, but how it is administered. I find that appalling. That is not just the case with the Post Office scandal; it was true of some of the banking scandals too. That has to change. We cannot have the people who created the problem trying to administer the redress scheme, because then victims do not trust what is going on.
I will come to the historical shortfall scheme for the Post Office scandal in a minute, but my feeling, looking at how it has been administered by the Post Office, is that it was designed in the early days to try to reduce the amount of compensation so that the Post Office did not have to go to the Treasury to fill the gap. That is the complexity that we have generated. We have a fragmented and inconsistent system, which leads to a waste of money and frustration for the victims, and slows things down.
I want to touch on a couple of schemes. I will start with the Post Office Horizon compensation schemes, which I know more about than some of the others. We have three separate schemes. I and my fellow members of the advisory board asked, “Why would we start here?” We all agreed that we would not want to, but we all felt that we could not unpick it and have one scheme, because it had already been put in place.
We started off with the historical shortfall scheme, which was designed by the Post Office to try to get redress for some of the cases that came forward, but there were serious issues. The first was with disclosure of evidence by the Post Office. I do not mind putting it on record that on occasion I thought, “Has it been lost or are they just frustrating the system?” I think that it in  some cases it was just frustrating the system. The second issue was that the Post Office was administering the scheme. Many individuals were asked to make applications without any legal advice at all and, lo and behold, the advisory board—to be fair to the Minister, he has taken on board our recommendations—now has to look at some of those cases again because of the way the scheme was administered. Right from the start, it was not fit for purpose.
We then have the group litigation order scheme—the famous 555 including Alan Bates, who took the Post Office to court and secured the landmark 2019 judgment. That is a completely separate scheme from the HSS. The GLO scheme was initially resisted. At first, the Government’s line was that the postmasters had settled the case in the High Court—basically because they were outgunned by the Government and the Post Office, who used a tsunami of public cash to spend £100 million on lawyers, but it is now coming out of the inquiry that they never had a case to defend. They were trying to defend the indefensible. Just think: £100 million spent on lawyers. We could have paid the victims out of that. We could have covered at least part of one of the schemes through that alone. We understand victims’ anger when they see that happening.
We then have the overturned convictions scheme, which came out of the 104 or 105 individuals who have already been through the Court of Appeal and had their convictions overturned. That will be the redress mechanism for all the other victims who will have their convictions quashed when the legislation passes Parliament. That, again, will be a different scheme from the others. Very early on, the postal affairs Minister introduced the £600,000 one-off payment to people, and he has now introduced a £75,000 payment in other schemes for people to accept as a final offer without going through the evidence or anything like that. People might say that that means that some people will get more money than they lost. That does not really bother me, given the trauma they have gone through, when the alternative is going through a long, laborious administration process. We would pay as much as that out for lawyers anyway; why should it not go to the victims? Credit to the postal services Minister, he has brought these payments forward. We must try to have such payments in other compensation schemes.
We are in danger of having a fourth scheme. I had a meeting with the postal services Minister last night and, as I have previously told the House, we are now looking at the pre-Horizon scheme, Capture. To be fair to him, he is determined to get to the bottom of what the Post Office did in prosecuting and bankrupting people. If the Government accept that victims were wrongly prosecuted and, in some cases, bankrupted, which scheme do they fit into? Do they fit into one of the three existing schemes, or will we have to generate yet another scheme? That shows the complexity of these arguments when compensation is needed. I would resist coming up with a fourth scheme—we have to try to adapt some of the other schemes, and we on the advisory board will obviously work with the Minister.
Lessons need to be learned from how the Post Office has handled this, and that could be the basis for the Cabinet Office’s work in looking at the pillars that are needed. All schemes, and certainly the Post Office scheme, have to disclose information. The Post Office has been  notoriously slow in disclosing the information needed to progress a claim. Has some of that been deliberate? In the past, I think it possibly has, but what do we do where the records no longer exist? I am sure some of the records no longer exist in the example raised by the hon. Member for Christchurch. Do we just say that no one has a claim? No, I think we need to take quite a generous view. If it can be proved, for example, that people have lost out because of the damage from a scheme, and if it can be proved that they are not just making it up, we need a mechanism to deal with that. Otherwise, victims are going to feel that they will not get justice.
Interestingly, I have more information on the pre-Horizon system, Capture, than the Post Office does. I have a full set of documents, all the software and all the floppy disks from the early Capture cases. When I put this to the Post Office, I was asked where I got it from, and I said that one of the victims who contacted me had a very assiduous wife—sadly, Mrs Tooby is no longer with us—who kept everything. It says something that I have more evidence than the Post Office.
The hon. Member for Christchurch talked about litigation. Well, how would a person litigate that? It is a pretty one-sided argument. The Post Office had no evidence at all in those cases. It knew that the evidence existed, but it did not have the boxes of evidence that I have. Again, trying to avoid litigation should be part of the process because, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is costly. People do not have access to that kind of cash. Even if they do, it is also costly to the Government. Who wins? The lawyers, and we do not get the swift redress that is needed.
Other schemes have been mentioned, and evidence on the Windrush scheme has been lost. Landing card records and other such things have all been destroyed by the Home Office, so how do we do it? We have to take a sensible approach and, to be fair to him—I know I keep praising him—the postal services Minister has. Where the information does not exist, we should err on the side of victims. We should not say, “We cannot move forward because we have no evidence.” That has been one of the problems with the Windrush scandal.
I have also worked with LGBTQ veterans who were dismissed from the armed forces because of their sexuality, which is a great example of the Government setting the parameters of an inquiry before it is set up. Lord Etherton did a very good job with his inquiry, but we had a ridiculous situation in which the Government said in advance that the compensation had to be capped at £50 million. I kept asking, “Why £50 million?” Apparently the only reason, apart from the Treasury wanting to keep control on expenditure, was that the Department saw what the Canadian scheme cost and said that it was roughly the same thing. The Government did that before setting up the inquiry. To be fair to Lord Etherton, he had no choice but to recommend £50 million.
I have looked at the cases and met some of the individuals concerned—Fighting With Pride is a great organisation—and there is no way that that compensation is going to be enough. I told the Minister for Defence People that, if he thinks he is going to get away with £50 million, it is completely for the birds. People have lost wages, pension entitlements and other things that need to be taken into consideration. If we are not careful, people will say, “Actually, it’s not worth going  through this scheme. We’ll just litigate and go all the way.” That is another example of how the Treasury, or somebody else, setting limits beforehand is not a good idea.
The other example is the infected blood inquiry. The Government argue that we have to take time to make sure we do it properly. I agree with all that but, bluntly, we know it is about saving money, and it is possibly about kicking the inquiry until after the election in the hope that it will be somebody else’s problem. Is it going to be costly? Yes. No amount of compensation will address the damage done to the contaminated blood victims and their families—I have read their testimony—but it will help to right some of the wrongs.
The Government need to stop kicking this football around and work on a cross-party basis to agree the way forward. I got into this through my constituent Tom Brown, who was a fantastic individual who fought very hard and with determination because he had not stolen £84,000, but he passed away before Christmas. As the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said, it is sad that people are dying before they at least get some redress for the harm that was done. That cannot be right. Many more infected blood victims will pass away before they get compensation.
Following the APPG’s excellent report, we need to build the pillars of a framework that can be put in place for such scandals. That should apply not only to the Government but to the corporate world, too. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) chairs the Public Accounts Committee, which is looking at this, and we need to change the Treasury’s mind on accepting that we will have more of these scandals in the future, whether we like it or not. We should be mindful of that in the accounts by putting consolidated funding aside for these types of compensation schemes. If we had that framework and that Treasury thinking of keeping that money aside, we could at least then not keep reinventing things, which is what we are doing.
The sadness is that we keep making the same mistakes over and over again, which is unjust for the victims, inefficient for Government and just feeds those in the legal profession—sorry to keep having a go at lawyers—to a point where they get more than the victims, which cannot be right. We have to approach this issue, as the all-party group did, on a cross-party basis, as it is going to affect not just this Government but future Governments. Most people across the House would want us to have a system that ensures that people get compensated when things go wrong, so some consensus across the House in designing such a system or framework would be worth getting. If we could do that, we would show the public something. That goes to the point the hon. Member for Christchurch made—people may say that the Government and Parliament cannot do things, but we can if we get our act together and work across the parties to get what we all need, which is redress for the these individuals.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). I do so with a small measure of trepidation, as a recovering lawyer; it is 23 years since I left legal practice, so it gives me a certain perspective. He is right to say that we are talking about the imbalance  of power between the big corporates, Government bodies and public bodies, and the individual private citizen. Beyond that, the real problem is about culture, because nothing in nature or law says that a big corporate, public regulator or public body has to treat people badly; that is the choice of the people who make up those bodies.
That problem is not new. As I have been listening to this debate, I have been reflecting on the fact that not long after I was first elected to this House in 2001, one of the first pieces of casework in which I became involved related to 36 residents in the south end of Shetland whose asbestos roofs had all failed following the grounding of the Braer, off the south end of Shetland, some 10 years earlier. The casual observer might think it common sense that those roofs had worked perfectly functionally for decades and then suddenly, after a tanker full of Gullfaks crude was dumped on top of them, things started to go wrong. The problem was that they did not go wrong immediately; it took time for their failure to become apparent. As a consequence, those people were at the tail end of those who were claiming from the International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds. Everybody believed before the Braer that the sum put into the IOPC fund could never be reached, but of course the Braer maxed out the fund.
By the time the asbestos roof claimants came along, there was no money left to pay the compensation. However, money was left to defend a court action, which is what happened when my constituents raised one. I have never understood the judgment in the case, but my constituents lost and, as a consequence, were left having to carry their own losses. I am certain that had there been more money in that fund at the start, their losses would have been met. So, yes, this is about the imbalance of power, but it is also about the culture of the organisation concerned. An understanding is required on the part of these bodies, be they corporate or public, of the purpose for which they are there. That is what I wish to draw the House’s attention to today.
Last night, I was fortunate to host a showing upstairs of a BBC documentary entitled “King of the Swindlers”, and the parallels with the Post Office Horizon scheme and its victims are there for all to see. There were only a couple of hundred victims of the “King of the Swindlers”, whereas, as we know, thousands of sub-postmasters were affected by Horizon. The “King of the Swindlers” concerned a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by a financial adviser in the north-east of Scotland, Alistair Greig. He was eventually convicted of fraud and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment, which was later reduced to 10 on appeal. The victims came from everywhere from Shetland in the north, down through Orkney, along the highland east coast and the Moray coast, through Aberdeen and down into Angus. They were all people who had lived and worked as builders, tradesmen or shopkeepers, saving a bit here and there. They put their money into this Ponzi scheme and lost out. The constituent who first brought this to my attention lost out to the tune of £130,000, and his mother lost £37,000.
Alistair Greig was responsible for his fraud, but he was able to carry it out as a consequence of the serial ineptitude and incompetence of the Financial Services Authority, later the Financial Conduct Authority. A journalist, Dale Haslam of Aberdeen’s Evening Express,  who has done tremendous work exposing what went on, pointed out to me last night that if the FSA had got it right the first time Greig’s wrongdoing was brought to its attention, he would have been stopped after only one victim. However, it missed the opportunity not once, not twice, but three times to stop what he was doing. As a consequence, the number of victims ran to hundreds.
Those who lost out were all small business people who had worked hard, saving £100 here and £1,000 or £1,500 there. They put all that money together and trusted it to Alistair Greig, usually on the recommendation of friends, family and others, because that is how business is often done in such communities. These people did not make that money by flipping properties or coming up with a great wheeze in the City; it was all hard won. Eventually, in desperation, they raised a legal action against Sense Network Ltd, the company that stood above Greig in the financial food chain, but they lost twice: in the first instance, and at appeal.
The legal action pursued by the 95 victims who had the determination, courage and stubbornness to pursue it did serve a purpose: eventually all the victims were allowed compensation from the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. That of course comes with an £85,000 cap, so my constituent who had lost £130,000 was immediately £45,000 down. However, those 95 victims of Alistair Greig who supported the legal action and made the compensation for everybody possible are left with a legal fees bill of £1.9 million; they are having to pay some £30,000 each, although the exact number varies. So my constituent started with £130,000, came down to £85,000, and is left with something in the region of £50,000. Let us not lose sight of the fact that Alistair Greig was able to do what he did only because the Financial Services Authority and the Financial Compensation Authority were poor at doing the job that this House charged them to do.
I invited various people to the screening of “King of the Swindlers” last night. I invited the legal team, including the solicitor who acted for the victims. I will be happy to introduce her to the right hon. Member for North Durham, because she is a sterling example of what good people in the legal profession can do, as a member of what I would still regard as a caring profession.

Kevan Jones: I hate to think that I have given the impression that I am down on all lawyers; some of my best friends are lawyers. If the system is implemented fairly, people can get proper legal advice without it costing a fortune.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not disagree with that. I saw enough of that in my time in practice. The right hon. Gentleman knows of my experience with the historical shortfall scheme, and of going into hand-to-hand combat with the lawyers who were instructed by the Post Office. In that case, we were able to make progress for my constituent. A local solicitor, Anne Robertson, a sole practitioner operating in Orkney, took on one of the three biggest firms in London and left them running for cover.
The victims were left with a £1.9 million legal fee because the inadequacy of the regulators left them with no option but to do what they did. We invited the regulators to the showing last night. I invited them in the middle of March; they replied last week in a letter, saying, “No, sorry. We have nothing to add. We are not  going to come.” Foolishly, the FCA gave me time to reply, and I had a telephone conversation on Friday night, as I left Shetland on a ferry to go to Orkney, with Chris Wilford, the head of public affairs, and Mark Francis, the director of enforcement and market oversight. Apparently, that is a proper job title; I thought it was some sort of ironic term, but that is what is in his contract. The response was, “Of course we are accountable, but we don’t like being accountable to you. This was an informal process.” All I was asking was for them to come along, sit in room and watch a documentary, along with the people who had lost their life savings to this man, and explain the decision that they had taken. That was all they had to do. They could walk out of the room at the end of the night, and I would be able to ask no more of them, but they were not even prepared to do that. I thought I would be up against some really slick types, but I have rarely come across two more nervous-sounding individuals.

Kevan Jones: It is your reputation—it preceded you.

Alistair Carmichael: That could be right, but I doubt it. My reputation is as a friendly and approachable character. We went through the process and eventually I said, “If these people had not taken that court action, how much would any victim of Alistair Greig have got back?” The silence was absolutely deafening. I let it run for as long as I could, and eventually I said, “Well, I think I understand now why you are so reluctant to come to the House of Commons next Wednesday.” The call did not go on much after that, but I did say that I thought that the matter required escalation, and asked them to call back on Monday with arrangements for me to speak to the chief executive. I did not get a call, but I did get an email on Monday saying that they had nothing further to add.
The chief executive of the Financial Conduct Authority is Nikhil Rathi. Interestingly, a couple of years ago that job commanded a salary of £455,000 per annum. I calculated that the Prime Minister’s salary is about 37% of what we pay the chief executive of the FCA. For jobs like that, it often feels that the more you pay, the less you get. I contrast the lack of moral courage of people like that, who will not sit in a room with the people whose lives have been affected by the decisions they have taken, to that of some of the people who were in the room last night, including the solicitors Philippa Hann and Robert Morfee. At first, the judge in the Sense Network case was not going to turn up, but he was there in the room. We expect judges to plead the independence of the judiciary, and rightly so, but out of respect for what these people had been though, he was prepared to turn up, watch the documentary and share the space with them. That spoke well to his strength of character.
Another person who was in the room was Judy Greig, the ex-wife of Alistair Greig, who was responsible for the scheme. She divorced him after his crimes came to light. He made himself bankrupt, but she refused to do that, so she has ended up carrying some of his debt. She is now 72 years old. She is working in a supermarket and still supporting the victims of her husband’s criminality. Her remarkable strength of character is in contrast to that of people like the chief executive of the FCA who, despite the very well-funded taxpayer salary that they get, simply lack the decency and moral courage to sit down in a room with their victims.
That is why I think that the question of culture is at the root of the issue. Since I became interested in the last few days in the detail of what was going on in the FCA, I have found very little to offer me comfort. Apparently, the FCA said that 60 of its staff were earning salaries below the £29,500 per year set by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation as the minimum amount that people need to earn to reach an acceptable standard of living. It is a possibility that the FCA will establish its own hardship fund in 2024, if there is enough demand among staff. This is an organisation where the chief executive is paid £455,000 a year.
Some of the commentary on the culture in the FCA is pretty damning. In one anonymous online report, a former colleague described the CEO as
“a very high IQ, but not as much EQ”—
emotional quotient. As we know, culture comes from the top of an organisation downwards. Unite, the union that represents many FCA workers, talks about the “toxic” environment for staff representatives, who have been given “minimal information” by their bosses. Again, this comes down to culture. How the FCA treats its staff reads across to how it treats people like my constituents, who find themselves in need of its services.
We set up the FCA for a reason, and the FSCS for another reason. The FSCS was only supposed to be there in case the FCA failed in any way. It is paid for by companies in the financial services sector, which are regulated, so they pay for the regulation, and for the failure of that regulation. This is something that the Government seriously need to look at soon. In the meantime, if the FCA wants to do anything to persuade me or anybody else in this House that I am wrong about the culture within that organisation, it can put the final sum of £1.9 million in a cheque to the 95 claimants who were the victims of Alistair Greig and Midas Financial Solutions.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Chris Stephens: I thank all hon. Members for a very thoughtful debate this afternoon. I have enjoyed all the contributions, which have raised some very important injustices. I will confine my observations to four issues: Windrush; the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, or the 1950s-born women; Horizon; and the infected blood scandal. Each one has caused hardship. Each one has been scandalous, including in the way that people caught up in these scandals have been treated and been given warm words, but very little action. All involve miscarriages of justice and, because of the delays in redress, we find that many victims are unfortunately no longer with us because they have waited so long. We should take some time to reflect on that during this debate. There are people who have just not seen that justice, not seen that redress and not seen that compensation.
First, let me turn to the WASPI women. We welcome the publication of the long-overdue reports by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which has found failings by the Department for Work and Pensions and has ruled that the women affected are owed compensation. However, it is staggering that, as the chief executive of that organisation said, the Department for Work and Pensions has clearly indicated that it will  refuse to comply. That is unacceptable. The Department must do the right thing and it must be held to account for any failure to do so. I believe that, if the will of this House is tested on that issue, it will join all of us who believe that the Department for Work and Pensions must acknowledge its failings and urgently deliver a fast and fair compensation scheme for the women affected. Members could of course support the private Member’s Bill in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), who is trying to force the Government to publish proposals for that compensation scheme for women born in the 1950s.
We also have the Windrush scandal. Just like so many other issues that have been raised by hon. Members today, it is shameful that people have been waiting so long for compensation from the Government and that people have sadly passed away in the meantime. This year marks the fifth anniversary since the launch of the Windrush compensation scheme, yet nearly 1,500 claims from the Windrush scandal are still to be settled by the Home Office. A great grandfather who has helped advise thousands of victims of the Windrush scandal on compensation has said that he fears that the Government are
“waiting for us to die off.”
I hear that phrase all too often when discussing issues such this. There is a real sense from people that they believe that the Government are waiting for the victims to die off. The Windrush compensation scheme has been painfully slow, with 53 people having died while their claims were being processed.

Kevan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the delay also adds extra heartache, not just because the individual has sadly died, but because then there is usually a legacy case which is passed on in a will, and that then leads to further complications, further delay and further agony for the families involved?

Chris Stephens: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made that perceptive point. When the other place discusses the amendment in relation to infected blood, that is the sort of debate that it is going to have. It is the Government’s intention that the estates will be paid, but what the right hon. Gentleman says will confuse matters. Both the other place and this place will have to think about what that will mean.
The other issue with the Windrush scandal is that the Home Office is in charge of the compensation scheme. An independent body should administer that scheme. The Government tried to do something similar with the infected blood scandal, when they were very resistant to an independent arm’s length body being set up, despite Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. It is clear that the Government were nervous about that. The only reason that they tabled their amendment in the other place in relation to an independent compensation scheme in that particular scenario was that the will of the House forced the Government to accept an amendment to set up that independent body. I do hope the Government will consider setting up an independent organisation to administer the Windrush compensation scheme, as that is a far better position to take.
As I have mentioned infected blood, Madam Deputy Speaker, let me say that I welcome in part the amendment that has been tabled in the other place. What is missing from that amendment is a timetable. People are waiting for justice. They need that timetable to know what is going to happen. It is unfortunate that the Government have not built on the amendments that were passed in this place through the Victims and Prisoners Bill. There is, I am afraid, a concern that the Government amendment in the other place is watering that down.
I wish to pay tribute once again to constituents who have been affected by the infected blood scandal, affected by Windrush, and involved in the WASPI women case. The last case that I will mention is the Post Office scandal.

Sharon Hodgson: Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to his last point, does he agree with me that trust in politics has taken a real dive? The cover-ups and then the length of time that it takes to address the cases of wrongdoing only further harms the public’s trust in politics and politicians. In the case of the Equitable Life scandal, despite the ombudsman saying that people should receive full compensation, around 90% of victims have still only received 22% of what the Government have acknowledged that they are owed. That is despite the ombudsman making it clear that finite resources should not get in the way. Does he agree that an independent agency is vital to stop the public trust eroding even further?

Chris Stephens: I think that is true. I get the sense that there is an anti-politics feel out there. That is not just directed at some individuals; it is a systematic issue. I think that people get very frustrated at the systematic delays that can take place in order to find redress.
I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) and to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) who have done fantastic work in highlighting the Horizon scandal. I do hope that the Government act swiftly, because we have to remember that 250 sub-postmasters have died without seeing justice. I believe that justice for all is vital, because justice delayed is justice denied.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I just want to emphasise to those who might be wanting to participate in the next debate how important it is to get back for all the wind-ups, including that of the SNP spokesperson. It is rather discourteous not to do so. Thank you.

Nia Griffith: I congratulate the hon. Members who secured this debate and the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) who opened it and raised some very important issues in respect of delivering appropriate redress schemes in a timely manner.
Today, we have heard from the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about vaccine damage and from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) about the Post Office and the constraints of non-disclosure agreements. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) has brought his expertise and track record of campaigning to the Chamber to speak on the Post Office and the  miners’ compensation schemes. And we heard from the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) on a saving scheme and the missed opportunities by the watchdog to prevent people from becoming victims of that scheme.
By definition, those who are eligible for redress schemes will already have suffered detriment, and many, as we have seen with the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, will have spent years battling for recognition and justice, and suffering avoidable hardship. We therefore owe it to them to ensure that we get the redress schemes right, and that they are set up as promptly as possible and operate as efficiently as possible, while ensuring that we protect the public purse from fraudulent claims. Learning from previous schemes, so that we are not constantly reinventing the wheel or repeating mistakes, and building up corporate expertise are therefore of vital importance. Each scheme will, however, have its own complexities and sensitivities, and it is important that they are fully recognised.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham highlighted, victims should be at the centre of designing redress schemes. The National Audit Office produced a briefing in 2008, building on the experience of some previous compensation schemes, such as the miners’ chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and vibration white finger schemes, which are all too familiar to my right hon. Friend, to me and to other colleagues who represent former coalmining areas. The NAO briefing stressed the importance of the right governance and project management, committing sufficient effort and appropriate skills to setting up schemes, considering the capacity needed, designing out the likely bottlenecks or delays, and being prepared to deal with external pressures. There may well be further lessons to learn since then. In January, my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, asked the National Audit Office to
“conduct a thematic review of government compensation and financial redress schemes”,
and the National Audit Office agreed to do so. I look forward to reading that report.
Sadly, as we have seen in instances such as Hillsborough, the infected blood scandal and the Post Office Horizon scandal, long before getting to any form of redress scheme, actually getting to the truth in the first place can be an uphill struggle, with victims vilified, shamed, shunned, imprisoned and financially ruined. On 6 December last year, when the Government published their response to the Hillsborough report, the Opposition, along with the victims’ families, were bitterly disappointed that the Government stopped short of proposing a Hillsborough law, which is why I raised it at Prime Minister’s questions that day. This week, we marked the 35th anniversary of Hillsborough tragedy. As hon. Members will have heard, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition raised the proposed law again with the Prime Minister yesterday, but we still received no positive response.
The purpose of a Hillsborough law would be to prevent such a hideous cover-up by the authorities, which was an appalling affront to the survivors and the devastated families of those who died, and left them having to struggle for far longer to get justice. The purpose of the proposed Hillsborough law would be to put a legal responsibility on public officials to tell the truth in any  form of formal inquiry or proceeding, and to ensure that individuals would face criminal sanctions if they breached that law. To be honest, it is extraordinary that that is not already the case. Importantly, the proposed Hillsborough law would also provide victims with parity of legal funding in inquests. That would avoid the sort of David and Goliath situation where victims simply cannot afford to challenge the authorities.
All public bodies need to be open-minded and even-handed when considering complaints or hearing from whistleblowers, and not rush to cover up and silence concerns, and hound whistleblowers out of organisations. Those in charge of public bodies need to contemplate the thought that mistakes may have been made, systems may be at fault, and there may be individuals who do not hold to the ideals of public service, or inappropriate cultures within an organisation. Often, early recognition and acknowledgment of a problem could help to bring justice sooner to victims, prevent further victims and ultimately save the public purse. Instead, it seems to take years of struggle, heartbreak, investigative journalism and even TV dramas before the victims’ voices are heard and believed, and justice is delivered. In terms of whistleblowers, I think of the senior paediatrician in the Letby case who raised concerns. Even though he was a senior paediatrician, his concerns were dismissed, and Letby went on to murder again—all the more tragic, because it could have been avoided.
To return to the redress schemes, it is all very well looking at best practice and trying to build on previous experience to streamline matters and avoid reinventing the wheel. Skilled civil servants can have the very best guidelines in the world, but without political will from the Government to prioritise, victims will continue to wait, and sadly some may never live to receive their compensation.

Sharon Hodgson: On whether people survive to get justice, I draw attention to Baroness Cumberlege’s “First Do No Harm” report on the harm caused by mesh, sodium valproate and Primodos. A lot of those victims are already dying. My mam is one of the victims of mesh. She will be 80 in January, and I hope that she lives to see some compensation and redress. Does my hon. Friend agree that these things really have to be sped up, because it is not fair? When people have been harmed, in this case by the state through medical interventions, redress should be forthcoming quickly.

Nia Griffith: Indeed. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
Recently, the Government have dithered and delayed on three high-profile redress schemes. I will turn first to the Windrush scandal, which revealed the huge injustices in our citizenship and nationality system. The scheme was set up in 2018, but a Home Affairs Committee report in 2021 pointed out that in early 2021, the average time from claim to payment was some 434 days. Even in February this year, the Home Office’s own data showed that some 14% of live claims were dragging on for more than six months.
As we have made clear in this House, Labour is determined to ensure that the Windrush generation and families get the compensation and justice that they are owed. If necessary, we would place the Windrush compensation scheme outside the Home Office if it continued to fail. Labour has plans to restart and  improve community engagement and outreach work to encourage applications to the scheme and speed up compensation payments, to ensure that every victim gets every penny of the compensation that they deserve. As part of our commitment to the recommendations of the Wendy Williams review, Labour would establish a Windrush commissioner to monitor the compensation scheme and the re-establishment of the major change programme and the Windrush unit within the Home Office, and to be a voice for the families affected, to ensure that a scandal like Windrush can never happen again.

Kevan Jones: My heart drops at the idea of another commissioner. The point, which my hon. Friend made earlier, is that we need Ministers who will drive things forward. A good example is the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who on a number of occasions I have called a poacher turned gamekeeper. He did excellent work on the banking scandal, and he has driven things forward because he is a Minister who actually cares about the victims and is prepared to make tough decisions within Government.

Nia Griffith: Indeed. Without political will, things cannot be driven forward. As my right hon. Friend says, ministerial intervention is crucial.
I turn to the infected blood scandal. The Opposition were disturbed to hear the news yesterday evening that the Government are yet again delaying the compensation scheme by trying to remove from the Victims and Prisoners Bill a requirement to set one up within three months of the Bill’s becoming law—yet another missed opportunity, yet another delay. In 2022, Sir Robert Francis KC produced his report “Compensation and Redress for the Victims of Infected Blood—Recommendations for a Framework”. In April last year—a whole year ago—Sir Brian Langstaff produced his second interim report of the infected blood inquiry. As the Minister knows, there is absolutely no reason why the Government cannot go ahead with setting up a scheme before the publication of the final report on 20 May.
Time is of the essence. Every week that passes without further Government action matters. Those who were infected with contaminated blood are dying at a rate of one every four days. The Labour party wants to ensure that justice and compensation for victims and their families are delivered as a matter of the utmost urgency, but we have still not heard the Government’s final decision on compensation. They tell us that they will not make public any final details until after the publication of the final report in May. I urge them yet again to speed up the process of delivering justice to victims and their families, including by getting on with the work needed to set up the structure of the compensation scheme, so that victims are compensated as soon as possible.
The Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill affords us the chance to make a huge stride in righting the wrongs of the past, and we on the Labour Benches are pleased to give it our full support.
This has been an interesting and informative debate. The Government should always try to learn from past experience and do their utmost to get redress schemes right, making them transparent and easily accessible to victims while protecting the public purse.

Alex Burghart: It is a pleasure to respond to a thoughtful debate in which we have heard some very good speeches. Hon. Members have had the opportunity to display the considerable expertise that they have built up, often while dealing with difficult constituency casework. It is a reminder to us all that we are here to serve the needs of our constituents and to help them find redress when hardship, difficulties and, sometimes, the system get in their way.
It was a pleasure to hear experienced Members of the House harking back to the glorious days when we had a full working Thursday. I share their desire for that—and not just because we would have had more people in attendance for this debate. It was particularly good to hear the considered speech of right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), in which he savagely attacked lawyers. I look forward to the leader of his party reading and considering his remarks.
We are here to debate the details that have been raised thanks to the diligent efforts of the all-party parliamentary group in writing to the Government with its thoughts about how we might make general improvements. The Government firmly believe that access to redress is fundamental in upholding justice and fairness in our society. It is imperative that individuals have avenues to seek recourse when they have been wronged or harmed. In recognition of that, the schemes through which the Government provide redress are numerous.
The Government have done more than most in the past few years to address historical wrongs. In 2017, the infected blood inquiry was set up, and in October 2022 interim payments of £100,000 were made to everyone in the UK infected blood support schemes. The Windrush programme was set up in 2019, the Horizon shortfall scheme in 2020, the overturned convictions scheme and the LGBT veterans scheme in 2021, and the group litigation order compensation scheme in 2023. Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General set out our next steps in supporting the victims of the infected blood scandal.
The Government have been steadfast in our commitment to providing diverse compensation schemes that cater to varying needs and circumstances. We remain committed to upholding the rule of law and ensuring that all citizens have access to effective mechanisms for resolving grievances and holding institutions accountable. There is, rightly, considerable interest across the House in how we can ensure best practice. I am grateful to be able to engage with some of those ideas today.
Although I acknowledge the interesting ideas mooted by the APPG, I think we should sound a note of caution. We must be wary of any approach that would set up a uniform system for redress and compensation. Each set of circumstances is often very different, and schemes need to be capable of reflecting those differences in order to ensure that the affected individuals get the best possible redress. Any reform process would need to ensure that we do not lose personal understanding of the claimants who are accessing the scheme, and that we provide adequate support and understanding of their personal experiences. I urge hon. Members to keep claimants at the centre of our thinking during consideration of any reforms—that has been at the heart of what hon. Members have said in the debate.

Kevan Jones: I do not disagree with the Minister— I agree that victims should be at the centre, and that no two schemes will ever be perfectly the same—but there are broad frameworks. What tends to happen—it certainly did with the Horizon scheme—is that people try to reinvent the thing every time. Surely we could put in place some parameters that civil servants could use as a template when faced with a future compensation scheme.

Alex Burghart: I was going to come to that point. Although the right hon. Gentleman is right that there is currently no public guidance, that does not limit the sharing of knowledge between Departments and policy areas. There is a great deal of dialogue and shared learning between officials when schemes come into existence. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) suggested in his opening remarks that the wheel was always being reinvented. That is not the case; a learning process happens within Government.

Richard Foord: I do not suppose that lessons are not being learned and that one set of civil servants is not passing lessons on to another set; rather, this is about victims having the reassurance that when there is a perceived conflict of interest, they have somewhere else to go.

Alex Burghart: The point I was making was very much that we have internal schemes of learning, and we ensure that each new scheme learns from the experiences of those that have gone before it.

Kevan Jones: rose—

Alex Burghart: I will give way one more time to the right hon. Gentleman, but I am running out of time.

Kevan Jones: That is not my experience. When we were setting up the advisory board for the Horizon compensation scheme, I asked officials to look at the mineworkers’ compensation scheme, which was a massive scheme. The problem is that, with the turnover of civil servants, corporate knowledge is lost. We need corporate knowledge to be held centrally in Departments—possibly in the Cabinet Office; otherwise, things left to Departments do not happen because people leave.

Alex Burghart: The right hon. Gentleman is right: the Government require a means of retaining corporate knowledge. That is something that I have been working on since I came to the Cabinet Office 18 months ago. I will not go into it now, but we are putting in place a number of novel programmes to ensure that, as people move on, we retain their learning—not just with regard to redress schemes, but more broadly across Government. He is right about that. Although there is a richness in having civil servants who have worked in many different Departments and have a broad understanding of how Government works, there is sometimes a danger that, in having that rotation, we lose expert knowledge.
I will move on to some of the progress that has been made on the major schemes that the Government have under way. In respect of the Horizon IT scandal, let me reassure the House that the Government are determined for postmasters to receive the compensation that they deserve. As of 31 March this year, approximately £190 million had been paid to over 2,800 claimants  across three schemes: £111 million on the Horizon shortfall scheme; £39 million for all payments, including interim payments, on the group litigation order scheme; and a total of £41 million for all payments, including further interim payments, on the overturned convictions scheme. With regard to the Windrush scandal, as of February this year the Home Office had paid over £83 million across 2,307 claims. On infected blood, as I mentioned earlier, the Government have paid over £400 million in interim compensation to those infected, and bereaved partners, registered with existing support schemes since 2022.
Let me turn to the specific points made by other contributors. Alas, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) ascribes to me a greater power than I possess: I am unable today to respond formally to the Cumberlege review, but he will be aware that the Government are in the midst of very serious consideration of its findings and recommendations, and I know that he will hold our feet to the fire to ensure that that formal response comes soon. To go back one more time to the right hon. Member for North Durham, I am grateful for his acknowledgment of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake). His comments about lawyers aside, I very much agree that we need schemes that reduce the opportunities for legal opportunism—we owe that to our tax-paying constituents, and also to those who have been wronged.
The Government understand that there are broad lessons to be learned from schemes that have gone on in the past, but also from the four big schemes that are currently under way. It will also be necessary for us to consider the response of the National Audit Office to the letter written earlier this year by the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), so that we can better understand how we can build on the good work that has already been done to help our constituents when similar wrongs befall them in future.

Richard Foord: I am very grateful to all Members who have participated in today’s debate, often prompted by conversations that they have had with individuals in their constituencies and therefore often paying great heed to just one person’s case. In recent years, there have been one or two positive developments on accessing compensation—for example, the interim compensation awards that we heard about have helped to speed up redress—but there are still some serious problems that are common to so many of the cases that we have used to highlight the problem this afternoon.
We can no longer have the same organisations that are responsible for the original harm also responsible for adjudicating what is fair compensation. Even in cases where there is not a conflict of interest, victims might perceive that there is, and as we have heard, they have nowhere else to go, so there needs to be the right of appeal. We cannot have the ludicrous situation in which an individual or small business who was subject to mis-selling, for example, has no recourse but to go back to the very bank that lent them the money in the first place. We need an independent, expert arm’s length body that could oversee redress schemes and would provide  a cost-effective way to tackle mass scandals. It would  ensure speedy resolutions that place the burden on those who commit the wrongdoing, not the victims who are caught up in these appalling situations. The recommendations of the APPG on fair business banking are an excellent way of introducing that framework.
I conclude by thanking all Members who took part in today’s debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House recognises the challenges faced by individuals and businesses in accessing effective dispute resolution and obtaining redress in cases of injustice; believes that the Government needs to address these specific challenges, namely a fragmented and inconsistent redress landscape; considers statutory guidance to be an essential measure to ensure compensation and redress schemes follow common principles and lead to fair and independent outcomes; and calls on the Government to create statutory guidance with common principles for setting up and operating a redress scheme.

Covid-19: Response and Excess Deaths

[Relevant documents: e-petition 639085, Launch a Public Inquiry into excess mortality in England and Wales; e-petition 628188, Investigate UK excess deaths not related to Covid.]

Andrew Bridgen: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths; and calls on the covid-19 inquiry to move onto its module 4 investigation into vaccines and therapeutics as soon as possible.
We are witnesses to the greatest medical scandal in this country in living memory, and possibly ever: the excess deaths in 2022 and 2023. Its causes are complex, but the novel and untested medical treatment described as a covid vaccine is a large part of the problem. I have been called an anti-vaxxer, as if I have rejected those vaccines based on some ideology. I want to state clearly and unequivocally that I have not: in fact, I am double vaccinated and vaccine-harmed. Intelligent people must be able to tell when people are neither pro-vax nor anti-vax, but are against a product that does not work and causes enormous harm to a percentage of the people who take it.
I am proud to be one of the few Members of Parliament with a science degree. It is a great shame that there are not more Members with a science background in this place; maybe if there were, there would be less reliance on Whips Office briefings and more independent research, and perhaps less group-think. I say to the House in all seriousness that this debate and others like it are going to be pored over by future generations, who will be genuinely agog that the evidence has been ignored for so long, that genuine concerns were disregarded, and that those raising them were gaslit, smeared and vilified.
One does not need any science training at all to be horrified by officials deliberately hiding key data in this scandal, which is exactly what is going on. The Office for National Statistics used to release weekly data on deaths per 100,000 in vaccinated and unvaccinated populations—it no longer does so, and no one will explain why. The public have a right to that data. There have been calls from serious experts, whose requests I have amplified repeatedly in this House, for what is called record-level data to be anonymised and disclosed for analysis. That would allow meaningful analysis of deaths after vaccination, and settle once and for all the issue of whether those experimental treatments are responsible for the increase in excess deaths.
Far more extensive and detailed data has already been released to the pharma companies from publicly funded bodies. Jenny Harries, head of the UK Health Security Agency, said that this anonymised, aggregate death by vaccination status data is “commercially sensitive” and should not be published. The public are being denied that data, which is unacceptable; yet again, data is hidden with impunity, just like in the Post Office scandal. Professor Harries has also endorsed a recent massive change to the calculation of the baseline population level used by the ONS to calculate excess deaths. It is now incredibly complex and opaque, and by sheer coincidence, it appears to show a massive excess of deaths in 2020 and 2021 and minimal excess deaths in 2023. Under the  old calculation method, tried and tested for decades, the excess death rate in 2023 was an astonishing 5%—long after the pandemic was over, at a time when we would expect a deficit in deaths because so many people had sadly died in previous years. Some 20,000 premature deaths in 2023 alone are now being airbrushed away through the new normal baseline.
Shocking things happened during the pandemic response. In March 2020, the Government conducted a consultation exercise on whether people over a certain age or with certain disabilities should have “do not resuscitate” orders, known as DNRs, imposed upon them. A document summarising the proposals was circulated to doctors and hospitals; it was mistakenly treated as formal policy by a number of care homes and GPs up and down the country, who enacted it. At the same time, multiple hospitals introduced a policy that they would not admit patients with DNRs, because they thought that they would be overwhelmed. The result was that people died who did not need to die while nurses performed TikTok dances.
The average time to death from experiencing covid symptoms and testing positive was 18 days. It is a little-known fact that the body clears all the viruses within around seven days; what actually kills people is that some, especially the vulnerable, have an excessive immune response. Doctors have been treating that response for decades with steroids, antibiotics for secondary pneumonia infections and other standard protocols, but they did not do so this time. Even though the virus was long gone, doctors abandoned the standard clinical protocols because covid was a “new virus”—which it was not. They sent people home, told them to take paracetamol until their lips turned blue, and then when those people returned to hospital, they sedated them, put them on ventilators and watched them die.
The protocol for covid-19 treatment was a binary choice between two treatment tracks. Once admitted, ill patients were either ventilated in intensive care or—if they were not fit for that level of care—given end of life medication, including midazolam and morphine. The body responsible for that protocol, NG163, which was published on 3 April 2020, is called the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or NICE. Giving midazolam and morphine to people dying of cancer is reasonable, but there is a side effect, which is that those drugs have a respiratory depressant effect. It is hard to imagine a more stupid thing to do than giving a respiratory suppressant to someone who is already struggling to breathe with the symptoms of covid-19, but that is exactly what we did.
Can the Minister explain why midazolam was removed from the same updated guideline NG191—the antecedent of NG163—on 30 November 2023? As it was removed, is it now considered and admitted that it was a mistake to ignore the warnings of so many experts about including that specific drug, midazolam, in NG163 when it was introduced? It has been confirmed in letters from Ministers to families whose loss of loved ones was down to this protocol that Ministers are now saying that doctors and nurses should have treated the individual patient with their own knowledge, rather than strictly following NICE guideline NG163. If legal cases for unlawful killing are brought, can the Minister tell us who is going to be taking the blame? Will it be NICE, will it be NHS England or will the individual doctors and nurses be held to account?
Interestingly, NICE has now removed these alternative protocols, including NG163, from its website, although every other historical protocol is still there for reference. Could the Minister tell us why NICE has removed this protocol from its website? Is it ashamed of the harm it has caused? It certainly should be. What can we learn from this? We learn that very few doctors dare challenge what they are told. Protocols with no authors are distributed, and doctors fall into line.
There is a huge, stark contrast in how deaths and illnesses after vaccination have been recorded compared with those after covid. After a positive covid test, any illness and any death was attributed to the virus. After the experimental emergency vaccine was administered, no subsequent illness and no death was ever attributed to the vaccine. Those are both completely unscientific approaches, and that is why we have to look at other sources of data—excess deaths—to determine whether there is an issue.
First, however, I want to address the phrase “safe and effective”. The fear deliberately stoked up by the Government promoted the idea of being rescued by a saviour vaccine. The chanting of the “safe and effective” narrative began, and the phrase seemed to hypnotise the whole nation. “Safe and effective” was the sale slogan of thalidomide. After that scandal, rules were put in place to prevent such marketing in future by pharma companies, and they are prohibited from using “safe and effective” without significant caveats.
That did not matter this time because, with covid-19 vaccines, the media, the Government and other authorities turned into big pharma’s marketing department, and it is very hard now to hear the word “safe” without the echo of the words “and effective”, but they are not safe and effective. In March 2021, when the majority of UK citizens had already received these novel products, Pfizer signed a contract with Brazil and South Africa saying that
“the long-term effects and eﬃcacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and…adverse eﬀects of the Vaccine...are not currently known.”
That is verbatim from the Pfizer contracts.
These so-called vaccines were the least effective vaccines ever. Is there anyone left under any illusion that they prevented any infections? When he was at the Dispatch Box for Prime Minister’s questions on 31 January, even the Prime Minister, in answer to my question, could not bring himself to add “and effective” to his “safe” mantra. In his own words, he was “unequivocal” that the vaccines are “safe”. The word “safe” means without risk of death or injury. Why is the Prime Minister gaslighting the 163 successful claims made to the vaccine damage payment scheme, totalling £19.5 million in compensation for harm caused by the covid vaccines? Have these people not suffered enough already? Those 163 victims are the tip of the iceberg, by the way. It also should be noted that the maximum payment is only £120,000, so each of those 163 victims got the maximum possible award, which should tell us something. The same compensation scheme paid out a total of only £3.5 million between 1997 and 2005, with an average of only eight claims per year, and that is for all claims for the entire country for all vaccines administered. So much for “safe”.
How about effective? On 25 October 2021, the then Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, Boris Johnson—even admitted that the vaccine
“doesn’t protect you against catching the disease and it doesn’t protect you against passing it on.”
Looking at the levels of the virus found in sewage shows that the post-vaccine wave was of the same order of magnitude and duration as the previous waves. This proves that the vaccines changed nothing. They were not safe, and they were not effective.
Those who imposed these vaccines knew full well that they could never prevent infection from a disease of this kind. An injection in the arm cannot do that. Only immunity on the surface of the airways and the lungs can prevent viral infection; antibodies in the blood cannot. In Dr Anthony Fauci’s words,
“it is not surprising that none of the predominantly mucosal respiratory viruses have ever been effectively controlled by vaccines.”
He continued:
“This observation raises a question of fundamental importance: if natural mucosal respiratory virus infections do not elicit complete and long-term protective immunity against reinfection, how can we expect vaccines, especially systemically administered non-replicating vaccines, to do so?”
They knew that the so-called vaccines would never protect from infection, which explains why they never tested for protection from infection.
Only a few days ago, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry rapped Pfizer on the knuckles for the sixth time, and said that its marketing practices had brought the industry into disrepute. It was asked to pay a paltry £30,000 in administrative expenses, with no fine on top. The person heading the ABPI at the moment is also the head of Pfizer UK. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has a statutory duty to carry out this work, and it has handed its responsibility to the industry. This is an outrageous conflict of interest.
Let us turn back to excess deaths. The Australian Government have launched an inquiry into Australia’s excess deaths problem. Australia is almost unique as a case study for excess deaths; as it had the vaccine before it had covid, its excess deaths are not so easily blamed on the long-term side effects of a virus. Like us, it saw a rise in deaths, which began in May 2021 and has not let up since. The impact was evident on the ambulance service first. South Australia saw a 67% increase in cardiac presentations of 15 to 44-year-olds. That increase peaked in November 2021, before covid hit. We saw a similar, deeply worrying effect here. In the UK, calls for life-threatening emergencies rose from 2,000 per day to 2,500 per day in May 2021, and that number has never returned to normal.
By October 2021, despite it being springtime in Australia, headlines reported that ambulances were unable to drop off patients in hospitals, which were already at full capacity. Mark McGowan, Premier of Western Australia, said that he could not explain the overwhelmed hospitals:
“Our hospitals are under enormous pressure. This has been something no one has ever seen before. Why it is, is hard to know.”
In April 2022, Yvette D’Ath, Queensland’s Health Minister, said about the most urgent ambulance calls, called “code ones”:
“I don’t think anyone can explain why we saw a 40% jump in code ones... We just had a lot of heart attacks and chest pains and trouble breathing, respiratory issues. Sometimes you can’t explain why those things happen but unfortunately, they do.”
I think we could explain this if we were to look at the link to the vaccine roll-out. Omicron did cause some excess deaths in Australia from 2022 onwards. However, there was a huge chunk of excess deaths prior to that, which doctors have not been able to blame on the virus. Could those deaths be caused by the vaccine? Very few people dare even ask that question.
It is important to remember how the vaccines were made. Traditionally, the key to making a vaccine is to ensure that the pathological, harmful parts of the virus or bacteria are inactivated, so that the recipient can develop an immune response without danger of developing the disease. In stark contrast, the so-called covid vaccines used the most pathological or harmful part of the virus—the spike protein—in its entirety. The harm is systemic because, contrary to what everyone was told, the lipid nanoparticles, encapsulating the genetic material, spread through the whole body after injection, potentially affecting all organs. At the time, everyone was being reassured that the injection was broken down in the arm at the injection site. Regulators ought to have known that those were problems.
Furthermore, it is now plentifully evident that the drug results in continued spike protein production for many months—even years, in some people. The deaths thus far have been predominantly cardiac, but there may unfortunately be many more deaths to come from these novel treatments, which may induce extra cancer deaths. Dr Robert Tindle is the retired director of the Clinical Medical Virology Centre in Brisbane, and emeritus professor of immunology. This month he published a paper highlighting the multiple potential harms from the vaccines, including harm to the immune system. As anyone who knows anything about biology will know, anything that disrupts the immune system can potentially increase the risk of cancer.
There are other reasons to be concerned about cancer being induced by these vaccines. Cancer is a genetic disease disorder that arises from errors in DNA, allowing cells to grow uncontrollably. Moderna has multiple patents describing methods for reducing the risk of cancer induction from its mRNA products. That risk comes from the material interrupting the patient’s DNA. It turns out that an mRNA injection has very high quantities of DNA in it, and that massively increases the risk of disturbing a patient’s own DNA. Worse still, the DNA that was injected contained sequences that were hidden from the regulator. That is the SV40, or simian virus 40 promoter region, which has been linked to cancer and has been found in the Pfizer vaccines. That was no accident. Yet again, crucial information was hidden from the regulator and the public with absolute impunity. An independent study in Japan, published last week, has found links between increased cancer rates in Japan and those who took the first and subsequent booster vaccines. Perhaps that explains why Pfizer acquired a cancer treatment company for a reported $43 billion earlier this year.
In conclusion, the evidence is clear: these vaccines have caused deaths. Despite that, they have been described as safe and effective. However, for a proportion of people who took them, the vaccines have caused serious harm and death, and they will have raised the risk of cancer for many more. Nor are they effective. The vaccine does not prevent infection or transmission, and when the data is looked at objectively, it shows that the vaccine does not prevent serious illness or death. Those are hard  truths to face, but we must face them if we want to learn the lessons of the last few years. At some point we will have to face up to all the evidence that is building. It was fairly convincing 18 months ago when I first spoke out, but it is unequivocal now.
It is time to take the politics out of our science, and to put actual science back into our politics. I ask the House to support the motion today, and for Baroness Hallett’s inquiry to open module 4 on the safety and efficacy of the experimental covid-19 vaccines. Given the evidence, I call on the Government once again to immediately suspend the use of all mRNA treatments in both humans and animals, pending the outcome of that inquiry. [Applause.]

Rosie Winterton: No, no, we will have to clear the Gallery if clapping continues; I will order it, if necessary.

Christopher Chope: As we have just witnessed, feelings are very strong on this issue, and large numbers of people have suffered directly or indirectly as a result of having covid-19 vaccines. For most people—the vast majority—the covid-19 vaccines were very good news, and they made an enormous contribution to the public health of the country, but that does not mean that we should turn a blind eye to those for whom the vaccines were bad news. In the earlier debate today, I reiterated my request that the Government take effective action, through the vaccine damage payment scheme, to ensure that those people for whom the vaccines were bad news receive proper compensation.
As the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) reminded us, the maximum payment under that scheme is £120,000. That figure has not been updated in line with inflation since 2007; had it been updated, it would now be about £200,000. Why do the Government not update it? Relatively small numbers of people are involved, but it seems as though there is reluctance on the Government’s part to face up to the reality that, for a small proportion of people, the vaccines were bad news.
When we had this debate initially, soon after the roll- out of the vaccines, the Government were unequivocal in saying that the vaccines were safe and effective, and with no qualification at all. Subsequently, AstraZeneca issued essentially a warning notice to practitioners, which said that they should be cautious about the roll-out of some of the vaccines to some patients. People who wish to make claims against the vaccine manufacturers and/or the Government—civil claims to supplement the £120,000 that they have already been awarded—are finding it difficult to get access to lawyers to pursue their claims, particularly if those claims arise from vaccines administered after AstraZeneca issued its first warning against the safety of its vaccines in certain circumstances.
A large number of people across the country look to the Government to intervene, first, to ensure that the vaccine damage payment scheme is updated, and secondly, to ensure that the people who applied under that scheme have their claims dealt with in a reasonable timeframe. Many of those claims are not. There are more than 9,000 claims, and 4,000-plus have not even been resolved yet. The delays extend to 18 months or more. The consequence for many claimants is that they are unable  to begin their civil action, but a civil action has to be brought within three years of the cause of action arising if it is not to be affected by the limitation period.
I have asked the Prime Minister—I had a meeting with him, and have raised this at Prime Minister’s questions —whether the Government will intervene to ensure that the three-year limitation period does not apply to people still waiting for a determination of their claim under the vaccine damage payment scheme, if they wish to go on and sue the Government or the manufacturers. It is a matter of simple equity and justice. I have yet to have a substantive answer from the Government. I am due to meet the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care next week, and I hope that by then she will be able to assure me—she is a lawyer, as well as a Secretary of State—that nobody will be denied justice as a result of the Government’s delays in administering the vaccine damage payment scheme.
I very much share the disappointment of the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, who introduced this debate, that module 4 of the public inquiry has been postponed. Last August, there was a preliminary hearing, and there was some potent advocacy by the lawyers representing the victim groups who wanted to give evidence in module 4. That evidence will be extremely compelling when it is heard by the inquiry. It was a big disappointment to those groups, to me and to others that module 4 was postponed. We have been told that it has been postponed until January next year. The reasons for that seem rather weak and feeble, but the inquiry is independent. Evidence that was to have been given in July will now not be heard until January next year. The implications are serious for those seeking compensation for their suffering, but it is also significant for that other group of people.
That is because module 4 deals not just with vaccines but with therapeutics. There is a big issue about therapeutics, because Evusheld, the therapeutic that was meant to be available in particular for those who were immuno- suppressed and not able to take the vaccines, was never approved by NICE. A second version of Evusheld was being brought forward, but that has also still not been approved.
My constituent Bernard Mathysse has written to me in recent months to draw my attention to a letter sent on 26 March to the Prime Minister by a group of charities concerned with the issue. It calls for the Government to intervene and ensure that an early decision is made on what can be done to help immunocompromised people who cannot access the vaccines in any event. My constituent says that
“France has given emergency authorisation to Evusheld 2, and has got it into patients within a month of authorisation”.
He believes that other European countries will do the same. The United States has given Pemgarda—another drug—emergency authorisation, and so on.
Why can we not get a commitment from the Government to ensure that Evusheld is available to clinically vulnerable people? My constituent also wrote to me in July 2023 expressing the need to fast-track an essential pre-exposure prophylaxis drug. The consequence for him is that he and his wife have been in effect shielding for about four years: they meet friends only outside, they do not travel on public transport or go by aeroplane, they ask the family to test before a visit, they mask indoors, and they have to assess every situation to gauge the risks involved.  That obviously means that they have a much restricted and isolated life, to their detriment, but that could be resolved if the Evusheld issue was taken seriously by the Government. If module 4 had been heard this summer, perhaps Baroness Hallett, as an interim recommendation, could have said, “The Government must get on with that.”

Philip Hollobone: I am hugely enjoying my hon. Friend’s speech. I, too, have a constituent who is immunosuppressed and, unbelievably, still shielding, which is putting huge pressure on the family. Does not the slowness of the decision over this therapeutic stand in sorry contrast with the rapid decision taken on vaccines in the first place?

Christopher Chope: Exactly. One of the inhibitions there may have been on the Government’s part was that, to justify the use of emergency vaccines, it was necessary for them to believe that there was no alternative. Of course, if those alternative measures had been recognised as a suitable way of providing some protection to individuals against covid-19, that would have undermined the vaccine manufacturers’ case that they needed emergency authorisation for their vaccines without going through the normal testing procedures.
The continuing slowness of the Government in responding to requests for licensing of Evusheld reinforce the feeling out there among many people that something funny is going on here and that, if we had come forward with those therapeutic measures at the beginning, many lives would have been saved, such an extensive vaccination programme would not have been needed, and the Government would have saved a lot of money. There is an issue there, but that is why the part of the motion that regrets the postponement of that element of the covid-19 inquiry is important.
We can debate academically or in political circles the issue of the excess deaths, but it is interesting that the Government concede that there have been excess deaths. The House of Commons Library’s briefing produced on 15 April for this debate says:
“The government has acknowledged an increase in the number of excess deaths in England and Wales and has attributed these to a combination of factors, such as the prevalence of heart disease, flu and heart disease.”
The emphasis is on heart disease, but many people feel that the increase in heart conditions and disease has been exacerbated by the very vaccines that people were persuaded to take to protect them against covid-19. According to an article last year, Dr Thomas Levy said that, on his estimate,
“vaccines are causing heart injury in at least 2.8% of people who receive the covid injections.”
He estimated that
“a minimum of 7 million Americans now have hearts damaged by covid ‘vaccines.’ And although there’s no way of being certain at this time, he said, it’s within the realm of possibility that over 100 million people in America have some degree of heart damage from the injections—not myocarditis but heart damage that will be detectable with a troponin test.”
There may be a link between the propensity of vaccines to damage people’s hearts and what the House of Commons Library, interpreting the Government figures, concedes is an issue of excess deaths attributable to heart disease.

Wera Hobhouse: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point that there is not a single medical intervention that does not also have risks—the medical profession will always acknowledge that—but is it not about a balance of the benefits against the risks? Ultimately, the judgment was made by those who supported the covid vaccine that the benefits far outweighed the risks imposed by the vaccine.

Christopher Chope: I agree that the benefits outweigh the risks, but I do not think we have ever had a system in this country where we license drugs on the basis that they will do more harm than good to those who take them. If the drugs are potentially significantly harmful to a large number of patients, those drugs do not get their licence—and why should they?

Kieran Mullan: With respect, that is exactly what we do. Antibiotics cause anaphylactic reactions that kill people. We give antibiotics to people knowing that a very small portion of them will be killed by them but, overall, they save many more lives than they take. That is why they get a licence.

Christopher Chope: The key question is: do the people who are being prescribed the antibiotics know that there is a risk that they will die as a result of them being prescribed? If so, they are told that, but nobody who was affected by the covid-19 vaccines was told that they were anything other than absolutely safe and effective. That is the basis upon which a lot of the litigation will be founded.

Danny Kruger: I agree with my hon. Friend. Hon. Members are suggesting that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks. They suggest in these debates that there is always a balance to be made, and I agree. But do they acknowledge that there is a risk attached to the vaccine, and that the excess deaths that we are describing can be attributed to the vaccine? They might suggest that the risk is outweighed by the enormous benefit of the vaccine by saving lives, but if they are suggesting that there is a risk that could help explain the excess deaths, that is not the Government’s position. Their position is that there is no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. If they are suggesting that there is a link but it is outweighed by the benefits, that is a different argument.

Wera Hobhouse: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention. I call Sir Christopher Chope.

Christopher Chope: Madam Deputy Speaker, the enthusiasm is unbounded. I will happily give way to the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) if she wishes to make the point to me in an intervention that she would have liked to have made to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger).

Wera Hobhouse: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. This is the point, is it not? There has to be absolute certain evidence that there is that link to the covid vaccine. That still has to be proven, in my belief.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rosie Winterton: Order. It is important that the hon. Gentleman answers the first intervention before taking a second.

Christopher Chope: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is very wise advice.
I take the hon. Lady’s point, but the Government were reluctant to concede, at the beginning, that there might be risks associated with all this. Now, we have seen that some people have been adversely affected and, in certain circumstances, have even lost loved ones. We would expect the Government to look after people who have been adversely affected, which was the whole ethos of the vaccine damage payment scheme when it was set up. The Government are falling down on their responsibilities on that and, as a result, that is adding to vaccine hesitancy. The proportion of people who are accepting invitations from the health service to have yet another booster is plummeting, because increasingly people realise that in their particular circumstances the risks may outweigh any possible benefit.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. The Chamber asks for a link. We know that the excess deaths are predominantly in cardiac arrests, heart problems and strokes. We know that the vaccine works supposedly by inducing human cells to produce spike protein, to be attacked by our own immune system and create the immune response. We know that the vaccine does not stay in the arm. It travels all over the body through the blood supply. Blood vessels are lined by endothelial cells. The mRNA goes into them and makes them creates a spike. They are attacked by the immune system. That explodes into the blood supply and that is a blood clot. If it goes to the heart, you have a heart attack; if it goes to the brain or the lungs, you have a stroke or a pulmonary embolism. That is the link. [Interruption.]

Rosie Winterton: Order. This is the final warning. It is simply not acceptable for there to be clapping in the Gallery when particular Members speak. If there is any repeat of it, I will ask for the Gallery to be cleared. I just want to be absolutely clear that that is the position I will take, because it is not what happens in the Chamber or the Gallery.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman has put on record what he wanted to say in that intervention. All I am saying is that, as the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage, I receive a large number of letters, not just from my constituents but from across the country, from people who have been adversely affected. I do not think anybody is challenging the authenticity of their circumstances or the complaints they make.
I am going to close—I know a lot of other people want to participate in the debate—with one such letter that came not from one of my constituents, but somebody else. She gives her name, but I will not repeat it. She says:
“After receiving my covid-19 vaccination, I experienced severe adverse reactions that resulted in hospitalisation. These reactions encompassed stroke-like symptoms, including seizures, tremors, inability to work or talk, irregular heart palpitations, low oxygen levels, vertigo, brain fog, memory loss, balance issues, tingling,  high blood pressure and more. Despite undergoing extensive examinations, a recent diagnosis of Functional Neurological Disorder has highlighted my ongoing struggles with headaches, declining eyesight, and daily seizures.
Before vaccination, I was a healthy 34-year-old; however, now I am severely disabled, unable to work, and filled with uncertainty about my future, especially with the imminent arrival of my baby. Unfortunately my situation is not unique; thousands of individuals are suffering similar consequences. Despite assurances of safety, many have been left with life-altering disabilities or worse. I am writing to urgently request an investigation into cases like mine to address the impact of vaccine-related injuries.”
She goes on to give the batch number, and to quote the rather lame response from the MHRA.

Neale Hanvey: The hon. Gentleman has just illustrated very clearly the fundamental difference between some of the points that have been made about prophylaxis and anaphylaxis. When people are given a drug that could precipitate or trigger an anaphylactic reaction, they are given prophylactic cover to prevent that. The hon. Gentleman is talking about the consequences—as described by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—of spike protein embedding itself throughout the body, prompting a systemic inflammatory response that is not acute, as with anaphylaxis, but chronic. That reaction to the vaccine is very different from a normal allergic reaction that is anaphylactic and will be treated appropriately.

Christopher Chope: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing his scientific expertise to the debate, because I am no scientist; I am a mere lawyer.

Kieran Mullan: May I try to add some further clarity? There are actually a range of side effects, many of which occur over time. Ibuprofen, for instance, is another medicine that we might consider safe and call safe, and a large number of people take it, but eventually, after many years, some will suffer a stomach bleed that causes them to pass away as a result of taking too much ibuprofen over time, although that was medically allowed and considered to be safe. I am afraid that the attempt to give a scientific explanation is based on a flawed understanding of medicines and side effects, which has been demonstrated by numerous people on the other side of the debate.

Christopher Chope: I will not be able to adjudicate on whether my hon. Friend or the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) is right, but I look forward to my hon. Friend’s being able to make his own speech and to its being subjected to scrutiny by the hon. Gentleman. That is a spectacle to which I think we are all looking forward.

Stephen Metcalfe: I am listening carefully to what my hon. Friend is saying, and I am sure we all feel very sorry for the young woman in the case that he has described, but is there not the potential that when a vaccine is given in such great quantities to such a large cohort of the population, there is more likely to be correlation than causation between the effects? There is no doubt that people were ill before covid and before the vaccination was delivered, but my problem is that I do not know the answer to that question. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) says he does, but I am not sure how he can. What I will say is  this: should not all of us be calling for further research on this issue to find out what the fundamental truth of it is, rather than listening to those who make assertions that have not been approved by scientists?

Christopher Chope: Part of the answer to my hon. Friend’s question is to be found in the adjudications of the independent medical advisers who have been looking at claims made under the vaccine damage payment scheme. They have concluded that in several hundred cases there is no doubt that the adverse consequences that are the subject of complaint were caused by the vaccines, and that has given rise to the compensation. In a large number of other cases, the medics have concluded that the conditions suffered and complained about were caused by the vaccines, but have not caused sufficient disability—beyond the 60% threshold—to trigger payments.
Given the evidence provided by the doctors who are acting independently on behalf of the vaccine damage compensation scheme, there is now no doubt that, for some people, the vaccines are fatal or cause severe damage or injury. That is not in dispute, and the more people understand that, the more they will realise that it was over the top for the Government and Ministers to pretend at the beginning of the vaccination programme that these vaccines were going to be different from almost all other known medical interventions and vaccines—in other words, they were not absolutely safe and effective. The failure to say that has severely undermined trust in the system, which is why we need a lot more debates like this.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I want to be absolutely clear, for the benefit of everybody who is watching our proceedings or participating in them, that if there are any more interruptions from the Gallery and it has to be cleared, I will have to temporarily suspend the House, which may mean that those who want to participate will be denied the opportunity. To be clear, I am trying to create a situation whereby everybody can have their say.

Graham Stringer: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who has done remarkably good work on vaccine-damaged people. I co-chair his all-party parliamentary group’s sister group, the APPG on pandemic response and recovery, which has allowed me to see that we have a whole body of expert opinion before us. Medics, lawyers, experts in childcare and a whole range of politicians have come to very different views on what the right response to covid was and, in some cases, on both the law and the science itself.
Before I go any further, let me say that my experience of the APPG, and of climate change or global warming debates, is that science and politics make very uneasy bedfellows. There is often an attempt in a political debate to resolve matters that are only resolvable by looking at the evidence, doing more experiments and finding out the truth of the matter, which is not always possible in a debate where people feel very strongly about things.
I want to talk about something we have not really talked about so far: the disease itself. People have different views about the damage done by covid. Some people think it is harmless and just another flu, whereas some treat it as though it were the plague. It is neither. It was a nasty disease for some people who got it, but its major characteristic was the profile of people who were killed or made ill by it. It affected older people much more severely. I think the median age of those who died was 82 for men and 84 for women, so it was a disease of the elderly. Those below 50 were relatively safe—some died, but not many. That was known at the beginning of the epidemic.
This comes back to the point about politics, and the protection of Government politicians, being more important than looking at the science. A rational response to a disease with the profile of covid-19 would have been to put a cordon sanitaire around those people who were vulnerable because of their age or because they had other diseases, such as lung diseases, and to let the rest of us go about our business and take the risk, as we do every year with seasonal flu, but the Government did the opposite. They locked everybody up and sent untested people back from hospital into care homes, where they infected other people, which led to a spike in deaths.
At the same time, the Government were telling us that they were following the science. I have a scientific background—it is not in biology, but I have a degree in chemistry—and I believe in following the science and finding out exactly what is going on. The science was not followed, and not only because the response did not follow the natural profile of the disease. In their early statements, people from the NHS, and both Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance, said that masks were a complete waste of time and that lockdowns were ineffective because there would be a peak six months later that would probably be worse than if we had not locked down. That advice changed very quickly, I believe under political pressure. Again, I think that was a mistake.
One country that did follow the science, Sweden, made mistakes—it made the same mistake that we made by sending infected people back into care homes—but it did not lock down and it did not restrict people’s freedom, or it did so in only a moderate way. It came out as about the best of comparable countries in Europe in terms of deaths.
Another consequence, which we see in every debate in this House, is that there is no money left. We spent £400 billion on covid, a lot of it wasted. We can read National Audit Office reports on the test and trace system, which was money almost totally wasted. There is also the money given to people who could quite easily have gone about their jobs. The businesses needed the money, given the decisions that the Government had taken, but the Government should not have taken those decisions.

Stephen Metcalfe: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that some of his comments are more relevant in hindsight than they might have been at the time? In March 2020, it was difficult to predict the path of the disease. We had seen pictures from around the world of hospital A&E departments overwhelmed by those turning up with respiratory problems, and Governments, not only here but around the world, had to respond to that. In hindsight, of course, what the hon. Gentleman is saying is accurate, but at the time we had to react in the way that we felt  would protect the highest number of people and protect A&E departments from being overwhelmed. That required us to act quickly. Perhaps mistakes were made, but they are mistakes in hindsight.

Graham Stringer: I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a point. In March, when the first decisions were made, nobody knew what was going to happen. There was a panic to go into lockdown, which was understandable while people were seeing what was going on, but very soon after that people did know. What I think was, and is, indefensible was to carry on with policies that we knew were damaging the economy and were not protecting people. I therefore voted against my own party, which supported the Government and more on this issue. I went through the Lobby with a small number of colleagues from my party and the hon. Gentleman’s party to say that what was happening was wrong, and that the damage being done by the policies was probably worse than covid. It might be hindsight for March and April 2020, but not for the rest of the time and the second lockdown.
Once we knew the profile of the disease, we knew that we were damaging children. I go into schools and meet eight and nine-year-olds who were locked down when it was known that children were not at risk. A very small number of children died and, as far as I know, they all had comorbidities—I stand to be corrected—so covid was essentially safe for children. We have damaged both their mental health and their ability to learn. I go into schools from time to time, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, and teachers tell me that it is very difficult to catch up. I am still annoyed about the response, and I do not think it is hindsight.
I went through the Lobby with a minority of colleagues. One of the two failures of our democracy’s normal checks and balances was that this place was not functioning, as the Easter holiday was extended. Surely the most important thing in a crisis is for our democratic institutions to function properly. We could not ask proper questions and there were no follow-ups. We kept our Select Committee going but, with the best will in the world, it was a pale imitation of what had gone before. There was a complete failure to insist on more accountability from the Government while the economy was shut down. Some of us, although we were not very many, came here to try to keep it going.
Our democracy’s second important check and balance is the fourth estate. These publications are not normally my politics but, with the exception of The Daily Telegraph and The Spectator, and the Daily Mail to a certain extent, the rest of the media, led by the BBC, were quite uncritical of what was happening. People say that BBC reporters were told not to criticise and not to ask difficult questions, and political journalists—not specialist health journalists who might have asked more pertinent questions—were sent to the press conferences. It was a political question, but it was also a science and health question. We were really let down by the BBC primarily, and by other parts of the media.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and other hon. Members have talked about the Hallett inquiry. I supported the inquiry but, having seen the way it has gone, I have given myself a good talking to. I do not think I will ever again support an inquiry. Do we really want to spend half a billion pounds on this inquiry? I attended the  previous debate on recompense, and we heard how lawyers are getting fat on all these inquiries. I do not know when the Hallett inquiry will report, but it may well last for years and cost half a billion pounds. It certainly will not provide us with any advice on what to do if there is a pandemic next year—I suspect that advice is what we all want. By the time it reports, there may have been another Government or two and it will be a historical document. Sweden is not a perfect society, but its inquiry has reported. The motion before us calls for the fourth part of the inquiry, which will be on vaccines, but is the inquiry really the technical body to do that? I do not think so.
In the first stage, the inquiry has shown an extraordinary bias towards believing in lockdowns. I would want to know a number of things from an inquiry: did the lockdowns work? Did they save lives? Have they cost lives? Where did the virus come from? The inquiry is not even looking at that and it is not dealing with any of those things, but it is taking a long time. It has made it abundantly clear that it is going to look at the impact of the virus on social divisions and poverty. I am a member of the Labour party and I can tell the inquiry, because I know, that poor people come off worse from diseases. It can go back to look at the Black report from 1981, I believe it was, if it wants to see that, as it talks about both regional and class disparities. We do not need to look at this issue, as we know that poor people do badly when there are epidemics—that has been true for all time.

Andrew Bridgen: The hon. Gentleman is making an eloquent point. Given our experience of inquiries, be it the current covid inquiry or the ongoing Post Office Horizon inquiry, is it any surprise that even the sub-postmasters have come to the conclusion that there is no justice in these inquiries and they are now considering bringing private criminal prosecutions to get their own justice?

Graham Stringer: No, I am not surprised about that. Inquiries take a long time and their reports and recommendations often gather dust. I have never made this point before, and I hope I am not going off-piste too much, Madam Deputy Speaker, but every time there is an horrific murder of a child we get a report with 90-odd recommendations, and the question is: does that protect the next child? No, it does not. I do not believe that these inquiries do. We need serious cultural change in many of these organisations, rather than another report on something. That is an easy thing to say and a very difficult thing to achieve.
Let me come on to the other part of the debate, which is about excess deaths and the number of deaths. It appears that just over 200,000 people were killed in this country by, or died of, covid. I had my doubts about these figures from the beginning. On a number of occasions, right from the start of covid, the Science and Technology Committee heard from statisticians. We had Sir Ian Diamond and Professor Spiegelhalter in to talk to us about the statistics. We heard from people from what is now the UK Health Security Agency but was then a named part of the NHS. We asked them whether they had the statistics on the difference between people who died from covid and those who died with it. If someone was dying of cancer and went into hospital, there was a fair chance that they would have got covid, because  there was not perfect protection within hospitals. Such a person would then be registered as having been a covid death, but clearly they were going to die of cancer. From the very beginning, that obscured the statistics.

Kieran Mullan: A number of statistics were used to profile the causes of death during the pandemic, but ultimately the most reliable statistics come from the death certificates, where a clinician has to make a judgment about whether something was a cause or an association. Those figures are reliable, and they match and mirror the other figures. So we have to be careful about disparaging the statistics that were used to monitor the profile of the pandemic over time in the rapid way we needed and the more authoritative and credible figures that do demonstrate quite a close match and help in genuinely understanding who did and did not die from covid.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, but I happen to know that in some local authorities, instructions went out to the people who were registering deaths essentially to say, “If there is a cough involved in this, we want it down as covid.” There was a different process because the health service was not working under normal—[Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to correct me, I am happy to allow him to do so.

Kieran Mullan: To come to that conclusion, one has to say that individual clinicians joined in a conspiracy to lie about what was on a death certificate. We can cast these aspersions, but someone has to fill that certificate in and I do not accept that individual doctors deliberately misled with what was on someone’s death certificate—that is what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

Graham Stringer: I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that at that time, when it was difficult to examine people because there was a distance between clinicians and the people who had suffered death, there was a temptation and a view that covid should go on the death certificates. I suggest no conspiracy, though. I do not believe in conspiracies.

Andrew Bridgen: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the AstraZeneca vaccine was withdrawn eventually in the UK and around the world. It was withdrawn because of the rarest of blood clots on the brain. It was not put down on any death certificates in the UK by doctors until after the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency admitted, due to international pressure, that there was that risk. After that, the death certificates started to appear with vaccine-related harms. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that that was because doctors were intimidated by the idea that their reputations would be smeared for putting anything down as a vaccine harm or by having the GMC on their back.

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman has made his point. I do not believe in conspiracies. I do believe that, from time to time, one gets a view, both in professions and outside professions, that pushes judgments in one particular direction. I believe there is one point on which we can reach a consensus in the debate: Government Ministers said that the vaccines were 100% safe—it was particularly egregious when that was said about children—  but no vaccine or treatment, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, is 100% safe. I think it was a mistake to say those things.

Peter Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman has made a sensible, serious point. Ministers here and in other countries knew that when they set up the global vaccines study. For those who want to know about this afterwards—not during the debate—BMJ article reference 2024;384:q488 looks at some rare side effects and acknowledges some of the other side effects. But those who start saying we should not have had the vaccines are wrong, and those who think that anyone believes any treatment is completely safe are wrong as well.

Graham Stringer: I am not familiar with that particular paper, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that nothing is ever 100% safe and vaccines have an overall benefit. I am vaccinated against covid, as I have been vaccinated against many things over my lifetime. Vaccines have made the health of this country, and countries around the world that can afford vaccines, much better over many years.

Wera Hobhouse: Further to that, may I suggest that this should not be binary? We do not acknowledge that some people have clearly had severely negative side effects from the covid vaccine. That should be acknowledged and there should be compensation and support, without completely throwing out the whole vaccine programme.

Graham Stringer: Of course.
I want to move on to excess deaths over the last couple of years, since covid, and the figures during covid. One of the ways of measuring the impact of covid was looking at excess deaths during covid. They were measured against a five-year average—that was the gold standard; it is the way it has been done—and that gave quite large figures. That is interesting given what has happened when the excess 100,000 deaths per year over the past two years have been looked at. The Office for National Statistics has moved away from that basis and on to a different one, and the figures are coming down.
We need an anonymised account of those excess deaths—this was part of a recent Westminster Hall debate—because that will help us to understand what is going on. The pharmaceutical companies have been given that information, but Ministers just give reassuring statements that there is no evidence that excess deaths are caused by the covid vaccinations—by the mRNA vaccinations. How do they know? They do not tell us that. We need to know, first, how they have come to that conclusion and, secondly, if that is a fair, reasoned and balanced conclusion. We also need a detailed look at the anonymised statistics, so that we can ask further questions about the problems that are worrying us—that certainly worry me—and so that we can make better decisions in future.

Danny Kruger: May I start by paying tribute to all the Members who have spoken in the debate? I have great respect for them all. It is a particular privilege to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). He was a hero during  the covid period. While so many of us were blindly following what the Government told us to do, he stood almost alone in making up his own mind.
I also acknowledge the leadership of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), and the work that he is doing to support the many, many families and people who have suffered adverse reactions, and I am proud to support him in that work. I have great affection and respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan), who is doing a valiant job sticking up for his perspective in this debate. He is sitting directly behind the Minister, so I am not sure whether he is able to speak. None the less, I respect the position that he has taken.
I also wish to acknowledge the work done and the speech made by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen)—please do not start cheering, because Mr Deputy Speaker will close down the debate. He is not popular with Members on the Conservative Benches, but I think that we have an obligation to take what he says seriously, and to examine the evidence that he has brought to the House. He has an absolute right to make the case that he does in this place.
Finally, before I get on to the points in my speech, let me mention my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe). He made the essential point that we need more evidence. Fundamentally, we need the Government to be more open, and to instruct the agencies of the Government—the regulator and the health service—to provide the data that we need to get to the bottom of this issue. I implore the Minister to respond to that point in her wind-up.
I disagree with the suggestion from the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire that some fishy business was going on in how the ONS has been calculating excess deaths in recent years. Who knows? Perhaps there is some fishy business going on, but the ONS took the right decision to change the methodology. As Carl Heneghan and others have pointed out, the previous method of accounting for excess deaths—of taking an average over five years—actually led to an exaggeration of excess death numbers during the pandemic and, in a sense, contributed to the great anxiety that many people felt, which encouraged the lockdown, so it is right to rethink how excess deaths are calculated.
We know, by all the different measures, that many more people are dying now than were before the pandemic. That might be accounted for simply by an ageing population, by long covid, or by the effects of an NHS under pressure, but as we have heard today, there is significant evidence that other factors are at play. In particular, the impact on people’s hearts, and increasingly younger people’s hearts, deserves attention. The British Heart Foundation reported last June that since the start of the pandemic, 100,000 more people have died than would have been expected. That is surely significant cause for us to take this question seriously.
The question raised by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is whether the vaccines have contributed to this increase in excess deaths. I hesitate to wade into this debate because I am not a scientist. I recognise the point made by others, particularly the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton, that science and politics are uncomfortable bedfellows. We know that there are adverse  effects from the vaccination. Everybody acknowledges that; it is a question of the extent to which those effects have been manifested.
My particular concern—this goes back to my point about a request for evidence—is whether the system that oversees the licensing, regulation, monitoring and analysis of medical treatments in general, and vaccines in particular, is up to scratch. There is so much speculation in the debate about what is going on, and what is true and what is not, but we seem to have some facts that we can all agree on. The first, I am afraid, is that the MHRA is significantly deficient in the way it operates. The Cumberlege report—this was referenced in the earlier debate—raised concerns about the way treatments are regulated and licensed that have not yet been addressed. I am afraid that through the covid episode many of the same concerns were manifested in relation to the vaccines.
We now know that the MHRA knew about the effect of the AstraZeneca vaccine on blood clotting as early as February 2021, but issued a warning about that only some months later—in April, a month after other countries had suspended the AZ vaccine. The MHRA also knew about the prevalence of heart problems and myocarditis in February 2021 but did nothing about it until June that year. In the intervening time, millions of people were vaccinated without the knowledge that the MHRA had. As has been said, we found out recently that Pfizer misrepresented the safety and efficacy of the vaccine. There has been very little comeback against it for that, and no meaningful fine. As we heard, just a few thousands pounds were charged in expenses.
The regulatory system that oversees the pharmaceutical companies is surely deeply conflicted, not least due to being partly funded by the pharmaceutical companies that it was set up to represent. It is significant and of concern that they have made so much money out of the vaccines, and so far do not appear to be making due recompense for some of the acknowledged harms— I am not talking about the wilder claims—that their vaccines have been responsible for. Will the Minister enlighten us on whether the indemnities against civil and Government action that the Government awarded to the vaccine manufacturers at the beginning of the production process still apply if it transpires that the companies misled the Government and the public about the safety and efficacy of their product?
The inquiry has been mentioned. There are so many unanswered questions and apparent red flags that it surprises me that the media and Parliament are not more up in arms about excess deaths. I am surprised that more attention is not being paid to this question. The fact is that this scandal—if it is a scandal—suits no one in high places in our country. It is true that we have an inquiry, but as the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton said, surely it is asking the wrong questions. It is very concerning that the module looking at the vaccination programme has been postponed. It strikes me that the inquiry is essentially asking the wrong questions; it is really just asking why we did not do more lockdowns quicker. That seems to be its prevailing question for the experts—not whether the whole response was the right one, and crucially, in the light of what we now know, whether the final response of a mass vaccination programme was as safe and effective as was claimed.
We are rightly proud in this country of the effectiveness, speed and operation of the vaccine production and roll-out. It was a triumph of effective collaboration  between Government and the private sector. The operation of the roll-out was a victory that all people can acknowledge, but it is not enough to say that the roll-out was done well. Was it done safely? Did it need to be done on the scale on which it was done? Particularly, did young people need to be vaccinated at all? We all remember Kate Bingham and others saying early on that the vaccine was only for the older population. These questions are increasingly being asked by the public and raised in the media.
Let me conclude quickly with what I have been doing. I hope that we will get more answers from the Minister than I have had so far from the Government. On 17 April 2023—a year ago yesterday—I wrote privately to the Secretary of State, asking him for evidence that justified the Government’s assertion that there was no link between the vaccines and the excess deaths. I did that because I had so much correspondence from people raising that concern. I said:
“I am writing privately in this way rather than raising the question in Parliament because I am determined not to give credence to unscientific, conspiratorial accusations, nor to undermine the vaccination programme in public if it is, indeed, entirely safe and effective.”
I did not want to do this in public; I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to give me the evidence, so that I could pass it back to constituents, but I am afraid that the reply I received from a Minister was the one that we have already heard: the bland assertion that a combination of factors—flu, old age and so on—probably accounts for the excess deaths. The rest of the letter was all about what the Government were doing to combat excess deaths, and the answer was mostly “more vaccines.” I did not think that was good enough.
A year rolled by, the evidence seemed to mount, and more and more people were raising this concern, so I joined the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir Philip Davies), who could not be here today—he wanted me to explain that he is on important constituency business but is very much here in spirit—and others in writing this time a public letter to the Government asking the same question in more detail. We asked specifically, “What is the evidence for the definitive statement about safety and efficacy?” The Government said:
“There is no evidence linking excess deaths to the vaccine.”
If so, that is great news, but may we have the evidence on which that assertion is based?
Secondly, we asked: “Will the Department for Health, the MHRA, and the UKSHA release the data that is needed to understand what is going on?” The data that we are asking for is already made available privately to pharmaceutical companies for them to use in their safety studies of the vaccine. Why do they get it, but not the public? Why cannot independent scientists look at that data? I am sorry to say that we had replies neither to that letter, which was written in February—here we are in April—nor, after months, to the freedom of information requests that went to the agencies.

Stephen Metcalfe: I do not know why the Government would not want to release the data. It may be that the data could be misused and misrepresented. One way around that might be to invite research applications  from our very sophisticated research ecosystem. Researchers could be given access to the data if they came forward with particular research projects. They would then be able to report on it, with external verification that they had actually used the data supplied, and not drifted too far from it.

Danny Kruger: That sort of practical suggestion should be considered. I would be interested in hearing the Government’s response to that. We are asking for anonymised data that poses no risk to any individuals. If the data is open and public, and the whole purpose is scientific interrogation and analysis, it should not be possible to misuse it. We need as much sunlight on that data as possible.
Let me end by repeating the commitment that I hope we will get from the Minister. I have been asking for anonymised, record-level, official mortality data, including vaccination status. That information, which is already being shared with drug companies, should be shared with Parliament and the public. If that is not possible, could the Minister explain why? Secondly, what are the sources for the definitive statement that the Government have made, most recently in October 2023—and that, I dare say, they might make again today—about there being no evidence of a link between the excess death figures and the covid-19 vaccines? I hope that there is no link. I took the vaccine—at least the first two jabs—as did most of my family and my constituents. I am sure that most people in the Public Gallery took it. We all did. I hope that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire is wrong to assert that there is a dangerous connection.
I am reluctant to be branded a conspiracy theorist, and I still do not want to give credence to unscientific assertions, but we in this place are here to take risks—the risks of ridicule and contempt—in exchange for the privilege of being here, and I think it is right that we raise these concerns on behalf of the public, even when there is some political cost. Too many people are dying, and we must understand why.

Neale Hanvey: I will begin by picking up on a few of the points that have been raised this afternoon. First, there is a parallel with a very important report that we received last week, and to which the Government responded on Monday: the Cass review. When concerns were first raised about what was happening in gender identity development services, those of us who spoke up at that time suffered both political and public pile-ons that were very uncomfortable. It gives me no pleasure to have been vindicated by the content of the Cass review. Certainly, when the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) first raised his concerns on this issue, he was also subjected to a political and public pile-on. The reason I raise that is that this cannot be how we tackle thorny issues. We must have a much more reasoned and mature approach to these things, where ideological positions are not sacrosanct and we have the flexibility to engage with, and look at, the points that are being raised.
My second point is about the discussion regarding correlation versus causation. It is fair enough to say that correlation does not necessarily mean causation, but it is sufficient evidence for us to start asking questions about what is actually there. That is a fundamental question that anybody who has been involved in any scientific endeavour must surely understand.
My next point is a slightly more difficult issue to raise, because it is quite emotive. Like many others in this Chamber, I have had two vaccines and a booster. My family had the same, but there is a question about the presumption that that is what saved lives. We cannot prove that, unfortunately—that is just not the way it works—but what we do have to grapple with is the fact that the treatment we were given, like any agent, can cause harm. We have a responsibility to interrogate those concerns, which is why I am very disappointed that module 4 of the inquiry has been delayed.
My last point is about the record-level data and the importance of how it is tabulated. The methodology for assessing excess deaths has changed; that might be a reasonable change in practice at a time of peace, if you like, but we have just come through a very difficult period with the pandemic. Changing the methodology immediately afterwards seems perverse at best and deeply concerning at worst, because it is important that from this moment on, we are able to understand how trends are changing in a directly comparable way. With a change in methodology, that becomes impossible, so it is not a good idea—just in terms of scientific rigour, it is problematic.
I will start off my contribution by expanding on some of the comments I made during the debate on 16 January, because we had very limited time to speak in that debate. I want to take us a step back, away from the emotive issue of whether there is correlation, causation, and a relationship between excess deaths and the covid vaccine, and remind ourselves of the principles that underpin how clinical trials should be conducted. The ethical principles that underpin those trials have their origin in the declaration of Helsinki and are consistent with internationally published good clinical practice guidelines and, obviously, all of the regulatory mechanisms that fall out from those guidelines.
Anybody who has been involved in clinical trials of any type will know that, as I have said, any agent has the potential to cause injury or harm. That is just the nature of the beast, and one of the things we try to establish during a clinical trial is to find out the harm, however minimal or maximal it may be, so as to mitigate it, manage it or rule the agent out because it is too risky. Performing such a test rigorously is the foundation of good clinical practice, and I make these comments as someone who has been involved in the management and delivery of clinical trials over many years. I think that, as politicians, as clinicians and as the industry, we all carry a duty of honesty and candour in these matters.

Andrew Bridgen: With the hon. Gentleman’s experience, and he has looked at the Pfizer trial documents, is it not clear that Pfizer only trialled the experimental vaccine for eight weeks with a 22,000 vaccination group and a 22,000 placebo group, and then it vaccinated the placebo group? So how can anyone tell anybody what the long-term effects of these vaccines are when people were only ever monitored for eight weeks after vaccination?

Neale Hanvey: I thank the hon. Gentleman, who makes a really important point. The answer to that is that it is impossible, and that is the fundamental point. We cannot measure late effects if we do not have evidence of late effects.

Kieran Mullan: Would the hon. Gentleman inform the House, in what is normally done, what percentage of medicines are normally subjected to a longitudinal study before they are put on the market?

Neale Hanvey: I am sorry, but I did not quite catch the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Kieran Mullan: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House what percentage of medicines that normally go to market are subjected to a longitudinal study, which is what he is talking about, before that is done?

Neale Hanvey: That was not actually the point I was making. I was making the point that any clinical trial, whether something is ruled in or ruled out, is subject to GCP guidelines, and it is up to the medical research ethics committee to sign off the protocol.

Kieran Mullan: indicated dissent.

Neale Hanvey: Well, the hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but that is my experience. I worked at University College London Hospitals and the Royal Marsden, and those are the principles that we applied in such a context. I can only speak to my experience. I am not a member of the ABPI, so I cannot give him those types of data. I am talking about GCP as a general principle. If he does not believe in GCP as a general principle, that is a different discussion.

Wera Hobhouse: I am no apologist for big pharma companies, but does the hon. Member not acknowledge that there was time pressure in producing a vaccine to mitigate all the things we have heard about—lockdowns, our economy being stalled and all the rest of it? Does he not acknowledge that there was time pressure?

Neale Hanvey: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I think we all understand the situation that we were in. I am not using a retrospectoscope to say that things should not have been done in the way they were done. However, they should have been conducted absolutely in accordance with GCP guidelines, and that is the fundamental crux of the matter. I am not suggesting for a moment that that was not the spirit in which the various companies entered into this, but we are talking about—

Kieran Mullan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neale Hanvey: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish the point I am making?
I am sorry, but I have now forgotten the point I was going to make to the hon. Lady. I do not think anybody entered into this to do the wrong thing, but there are fundamental questions about how we move things forward now and whether harm was inflicted as part of the administration of these agents.

Kieran Mullan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Neale Hanvey: I will give way one more time.

Kieran Mullan: I am very grateful. I raise this because the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made a point about timelines, saying that the trial was done in eight weeks and asking how the  vaccine could possibly be safe. The reason why I mentioned longitudinal studies is that a common deliberate attempt to mislead people about what went on with the vaccine is to suggest that, because the trial was done over a short period of time, it could not possibly have been done correctly. Typically, trials take a long time because it takes a long time to recruit the right number of patients and to do the work. In such a trial, the same number of patients go through it over a longer period, but that does not change the baseline data, which is based on how many patients there are. We do not typically use longitudinal studies, and that vaccine trial was done by using a lot of people in a short space of time to create the same amount of evidence.

Neale Hanvey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that clarifying point. People I have spoken to who were involved in those clinical trials have raised serious and significant concerns about the way that their experience after the drug was administered to them, and the impact that it had on them in an acute way, was either minimised or written out of trial data. That is a serious allegation, and everyone should be interested in understanding the detail. It is certainly not what I would understand would fit within the principles of GCP, and there are serious questions about how trial studies were conducted. As the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire said, the longitudinal element of that was impossible—we are now seeing that—but that does not mean we can ignore it, absolutely not. The principles I have been outlining are there because they are the basis on which good science is established and based.
Let me move to some of the questions that we must raise and answer today, openly and transparently, and with full access to ONS record-level data. I am not saying that that should be disclosed to all and sundry, but surely the Government cannot defend the position that they are not willing to release that information to interested clinicians and clinical academics as a minimum. Those are the people who need to interrogate the data. It is of little relevance to me—I do not have the means or academic ability to interpret it—but it is something that interested clinical academics should have access to.
Let me move on to what we know about some of the issues surrounding mRNA technology. We know that it does not replicate locally, as we were assured it would do on launch. It metastasises to distant tissue, and replicates spike protein systemically distant from the site of administration. That is problematic for a number of reasons. According to the University of London Professor of Oncology, and principal of the Institute for Cancer Vaccines and Immunotherapy, Professor Angus Dalgleish, this has precipitated various serious and sometimes fatal consequences due to antibody development mediated by the spike protein. I will not go into the detail of that, but at a meeting convened by the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire, Professor Dalgleish told us that the UK Government and their agencies are in serious denial about this issue, resulting in many deaths being poorly understood.
Let me give a couple of examples. Vaccine-induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia is one of the principal causes of blood clot formation, which can cause stroke, pulmonary emboli, and other cardiac-related events including heart attacks, all of which can be life-limiting or fatal. Another antibody linked to the  spike protein exerts an effect on myelin, and is associated with Guillain-Barré syndrome and transverse myelitis, which is a swelling around the spinal cord. Professor Dalgleish believes that that constitutes medical negligence, because the facts are there for all to see. He contends that many deaths are as a direct result of unnecessary vaccination. Furthermore, he advises that there are a greater number of yellow cards in MHRA for covid vaccines than for all other vaccines recorded, and nothing has really been done.
In a recent written answer to me, it was confirmed that the MHRA has received 489,004 spontaneous suspected adverse drug reaction reports relating to the covid-19 vaccine, up to and including 28 February this year. Across the United Kingdom, 2,734 of those reports were associated with a fatal outcome. Of course the true number is unknown—that is the nature of yellow card reporting, as only a fraction of adverse events are reported—and that is probably because of limited public awareness about some of the potential consequences and complications of vaccines, and the well-understood under-reporting of those adverse events. That is important, because the yellow card system is a key element of safe and effective clinical care. If things are not being evaluated properly, I can think of no greater betrayal of the MHRA’s clinical governance responsibility. I suggest that accountability for that must be swift and decisive. The rigorous assessment of these data is essential and must be actioned urgently. Will the Minister now engage with the MHRA and invite it to come to the House to explain the facts on these reports?
Another issue, which arises from a further written question that I tabled, relates to the role of the MHRA. It has a crucial role—in fact, it is a statutory function—to provide post-marketing surveillance and to operate the yellow card system, but the Minister responded to my question about the assessment of the potential implications of the BMJ article “Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is ‘likely’ responsible for deaths of some elderly patients, Norwegian review finds” by stating:
“The MHRA communicates safety advice based upon consideration of the totality of evidence from all relevant information sources, rather than the strengths and limitations of individual data sources.”
Surely, a fundamental step in any meta-analysis of published data is to interrogate the robustness of those data and for the public to have confidence that that is happening.
That point links right back to where I started, on the Cass report. One of the fundamental failings that the report identified was circular citation among various different organisations. They were validating one another’s position to create a false impression that there was an evidence base for the practice they were involved in. If the MHRA will say, “We do not interrogate the data when we do a meta-analysis,” who does? Who will validate the data? If I can hand over to the MHRA a whole load of numbers and it will just count them and accept that I have said my methodological rigour is robust, that is not good enough as far as I am concerned.
The Minister’s response to my written question was that the MHRA does not
“assign causality at the level of individual reports,”
as that is not its responsibility. If that is the case, whose responsibility is it? Who is interrogating the data and making that decision? If no one is, how can we get from  correlation to a developed picture of causation? That is an essential step. It raises fundamental questions about that responsibility and the reliability of the data that the MHRA is relying on. If we are to learn anything from the general implications of the Cass report, we must have a clear steer from the MHRA on how these fundamental scientific principles will be observed and upheld.
I will canter through some important published evidence, which comes back to the correlation/causation discussion. In a 2021 study looking at cardiac inflammatory markers in patients receiving mRNA vaccines, Steven Gundry observed that mRNA vaccination numerically increased markers
“previously described by others for denoting inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle”
in a patient population receiving the vaccine. A 2022 study by Fraiman et al. noted that the
“excess risk of serious adverse events”
identified in their study pointed
“to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses”.
That suggestion is wholly consistent with the principles set out in the declaration of Helsinki and is an ethical imperative.
In 2023, a pre-print Lancet study by Nicolas Hulscher et al., including leading cardiologist Peter McCullough and Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, reviewed 325 autopsies after covid vaccination and found that 74% of the deaths were attributable to the vaccine. That study, which was published online, was then swiftly removed, allegedly for issues with ideological rigour. I wonder whether it was the MHRA that did the assessment of its rigour. Surely those data and findings—however problematic some of the methodology might have been—demand further scrutiny, not removal.
A December 2023 Lancet Regional Health study by Jonathan Pearson-Stuttard et al. examined excess mortality in England post the covid-19 pandemic and the implications for secondary prevention. It stated:
“Many countries, including the UK, have continued to experience an apparent excess of deaths long after the peaks associated with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. Numbers of excess deaths estimated in this period are considerable.”
It noted that
“overall trends tend to be consistent across the various methods.”
It continued:
“The causes of these excess deaths are likely to be multiple…Further analysis by cause and by age- and sex-group may help quantify the relative contributions of these causes.”
I ask again: should we not at least be curious about this?
The study continued:
“The greatest numbers of excess deaths in the acute phase of the pandemic were in older adults. The pattern now is one of persisting excess deaths which are most prominent in relative terms in middle-aged and younger adults, with deaths from CVD causes and deaths in private homes being most affected.”
That is a completely different clinical picture. It continued:
“Timely and granular analyses are needed to describe such trends and so to inform prevention and disease management efforts.”
Documents recently disclosed as part of a freedom of information lawsuit against the US Food and Drug Administration indicate that the agency was aware that the safety monitoring system for Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine was “not sufficient” for assessing associated heart conditions when it licensed the company’s vaccine. Those documents  also reveal numerous manufacturing concerns with Pfizer batches that were released to the public and show that the FDA knew about a phenomenon known as vaccine-associated enhanced diseases in those who were vaccinated and experienced breakthrough covid-19.
Let us move on to what we do not know. We have had no real progress on the points raised in the debate, particularly on record-level data. We need either that data to be released to clinical academics and others or a cogent explanation for why that is not happening. Why were those concerns kept hidden by the FDA? Are similar concerns or issues being hidden by the UK Government? Some of the points made about the delay in the MHRA taking action on clinical impacts is relevant to that point.
According to a House of Commons Library briefing, the Government-operated vaccine damage payment scheme, which has been discussed in both this debate and the previous one, provides only a one-off tax-free payment, which is currently a modest £120,000, to applicants where a vaccine has caused severe disablement. Data on VDPS claims relating to covid-19 vaccination is not routinely published, so we do not have particular metrics that establish how many claims are being made against those vaccines.
The most recent data is from September 2023. According to the NHS Business Services Authority, at that time it had received 7,160 claims relating to covid-19. Following medical assessment, 142 claims—just under 2%—were awarded, and 3,030 were rejected. A further 192 claims were found to be “invalid”. We need to understand why that was. What are claims being measured against and who is interpreting the clinical assessment information? We must also ask whether the exclusion criteria are reliable, given the concerns raised in the debate.
Based on the data that I have here, there are currently 3,796 unresolved claims, 1,010 of which have been unresolved for more than six months. If the 142 successful claims receive the full payment, the total cost will be around £17 million. If there are a further 177 successful claims from the unresolved cases, the associated cost will be a further £21 million. I am advised that the Government set aside some funding for this issue, but this has the hallmarks of the contaminated blood scandal written all over it. We must get ahead of the game and make sure that people get the compensation that they desperately need at a time when it is important to them.
There is another question: why are the Government so willing to pick up the tab on vaccine injury, however inadequate the scheme is, given the fatalities and the significant life-limiting impact on the victims? These concerns have been amplified significantly following the publication in The Spectator Australia of an account by genomics scientist Kevin McKernan of his accidental discovery. It states:
“While running an experiment in his Boston lab, McKernan used some vials of mRNA Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines as controls. He was ‘shocked’ to find that they were allegedly contaminated with tiny fragments of plasmid DNA.”
His concern has been considered further by Professor Angus Dalgleish, who noted that the contaminant, simian virus 40, is
“a sequence that is ‘used to drive DNA into the nucleus, especially in gene therapies’ and that this is ‘something that regulatory agencies around the world have specifically said is not possible with the mRNA vaccines’. These SV40 promotors are also well recognised as being oncogenic”—
or cancer-inducing genetic material. Other scientists have confirmed those findings. Professor Dalgleish further notes:
“To put it bluntly, this means that they are not vaccines at all but a…Genetically Modified Organism that should have been subject to totally different regulatory conditions and certainly not be classed as vaccines.”
Worryingly, Professor Dalgleish also notes that oncologists have contacted him from across the world, and the consensus is that this is thought to be precipitating relapse in melanoma, lymphoma, leukaemia and kidney cancers. He concludes with the following warning:
“To advise booster vaccines, as is the current case, is no more and no less than medical incompetence; to continue to do so”—
with his cited evidence—
“is medical negligence which can carry a custodial sentence.”

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and his quotes from Professor Angus Dalgleish, who I remind the House is the most cited oncologist in the UK. I invited him here to witness this debate since he had some input into it. He could not attend, because he is speaking at a conference in Berlin on this very issue.

Neale Hanvey: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point of information and for acknowledging an important scientist in this debate. It is a great honour to have worked in the same institutions as Professor Dalgleish, as he provides great leadership on this technology. He makes a valuable and impeccable contribution to this problem. He concluded that piece by saying:
“No ifs or buts any longer. All mRNA vaccines must be halted and banned now.”
Will the Minister answer the following question? Is big pharma being exempted from liability, and if so, why? The loss of trust in big pharma is substantial and, worryingly, because of that the value of vaccination itself has been deeply damaged. Personally—I say this frankly—I will never accept another mRNA vaccine, and I am far from alone. Will the Minster agree to full disclosure of the data and an investigation of the facts? Will she also commit to instructing the Office for National Statistics to release the record level data, or will it take someone like New Zealander Barry Young, a whistleblower imprisoned for publishing its record level data, to surface concerns about the covid vaccine programme? As we have seen with the Horizon scandal, the Government must never bury the facts when lives are being lost and futures destroyed. There is no greater betrayal.
In closing, the foundations of good clinical practice are under threat. I will put that in context with the December 2023 Pathology Research and Practice paper on “Gene-based covid-19 vaccines” from Rhodes and Parry. They gave the following warning:
“Pandemic management requires societal coordination, global orchestration, respect for human rights and defence of ethical principles. Yet some approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic, driven by socioeconomic, corporate, and political interests, have undermined key pillars of ethical medical science.”
None of these clinical experts are quacks or conspiracy theorists. As the Government said so often during the pandemic, we must follow the science.

Andrew Gwynne: I congratulate the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) on securing the debate, and the Backbench Business Committee on granting time for it. I thank Members who have contributed, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), and the hon. Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), for Devizes (Danny Kruger) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey). It would be remiss of me not to thank those who participated with extensive interventions, including the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), the Father of the House, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley), who is no longer in his place, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse).
We have had a good and I think fairly measured debate, given the strong feelings held on both sides of it. It is probably important to accurately define the subject we are discussing here today. The term “excess deaths” is not new, nor in any way derived directly from the covid-19 pandemic. It is a key statistic continuously tracked by Governments of all colours and political persuasions over a number of years. It is data that helps Ministers to keep informed, and to inform policy development and measures to improve health outcomes in our communities.
Vaccines in the covid-19 pandemic were and, importantly, remain an essential tool in our fight against covid-19.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the shadow Minister give way on that point?

Andrew Gwynne: I will not give way; I am just opening.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath in this respect. I think it is evident from the covid death data during the pandemic throughout the lockdowns that covid-related deaths came down significantly almost immediately as the vaccine was rolled out. What we can say, as the hon. Member for Christchurch did in his contribution, is that for many millions of people in this country, the vaccine was a success and it allowed us to return to lives that were as near normal as possible. However, we must not underestimate the fact that covid-19 was a massive killer in this country. We only have to look at the wall across the river from the Palace of Westminster to see the impact covid-19 had on communities up and down the country. I and the Opposition remain firmly of the view that the covid-19 vaccines played a massive, fundamental role in returning life to normal.
As happens with any form of medical intervention, there have been instances of harmful side effects—no one disputes that—and when those are found, they should of course be properly investigated. The efficacy of drugs needs to be reviewed over periods of time, and the science needs to be fully understood and responded to. That, I think, is true of any drug that is available on the national health service. I should also say that the hon. Member for Christchurch raised some very fair points about the covid vaccine damage payment scheme. We have had debates about it in Westminster Hall, and I think he is right to raise those concerns as eloquently as he does.
I will always be open to the testing of scientific evidence, but, as a number of Members have pointed out today, for millions of us the vaccines have been a game changer in overcoming the worst fears of covid-19. They have allowed us to return to normality, and, most important of all, they have saved lives. We do need to understand more about why for some they have caused reactions, and in some cases may have tragically led to fatalities, which is why I think the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock was right to say that we need to get to the bottom of that data. But investigation and review should not be allowed to frighten people who, to this day, are still deeply vulnerable, away from taking the covid vaccine boosters, and it is important for us to send out the message that those who need the boosters should have them.

Stephen Metcalfe: I should put it on record that I am fully vaccinated, that I was a supporter of the vaccines when they first came out, and that I am a supporter of them now and will continue to be. I think that they play a huge role in managing serious disease. My concern at the moment is that the tone of some of this debate is undermining not only the reputation of our scientists, but the efficacy of vaccine programmes in the future. I do not want to shut down the debate about the topic. We need to find a way of filling the evidence gap, and I hope we can do that collectively by encouraging research so that potentially wild and untested theories do not fill that vacuum.

Andrew Gwynne: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. We know that there is a cohort of people for whom the covid-19 vaccines have led to reactions, and we know that there is, tragically, a cohort of people who have died. We need to learn more about the impact of this set of vaccines on that cohort, but for the vast majority of people the covid-19 vaccines have been a huge success, and we should not let people think that they are at risk from them. In fact, many people who are being asked right now to take the vaccines because they are immunosuppressed are at risk of not taking them, and we need to ensure that they are protected. I, too, am fully vaccinated, and because of my own ongoing health issues I have just been invited for my next booster, which I will be taking.
We know that the virus itself has been a key driver of excess mortality, and it continues to have an impact across our communities to this day. I understand that, and I understand that covid affects many people. I still struggle with long covid. In fact, my long covid has been much worse than the actual covid infection that I got in March 2020, way before any vaccines were even dreamt of. There are lots of people who are in a far worse situation, because they have not yet been able to return to work or to near full fitness. Even to this day, I still struggle with the impacts of a covid infection right at the start of the first wave of covid in March 2020, and it debilitated me for the best part of two years.
Millions of clinically vulnerable people—the hon. Member for Christchurch rightly raised this—continue to shield and live with the constant reminder of the impact that the virus can have on them, because they are not able to take the vaccine and they do not have the necessary level of protection for their own health needs to be able to return to anything like a near normal  lifestyle. He mentioned Evusheld and Evusheld 2, and I very much support the right of clinically vulnerable communities to access those drugs so that they can regain the freedoms that we have all benefited from. I will continue to communicate with those communities and, where I can, seek to amplify their concerns.
Yes, covid is part of the picture, but across the board we have seen an increase in the incidence of major conditions such as cancer, diabetes and heart disease, all of which have contributed to the figures on excess deaths. The way to fight back against those numbers is to inform people responsibly about their health and wellbeing, and about the measures that are in place to protect them. It is also about ensuring that our health service is fit for the future. We need an NHS that is rooted in the communities that it serves, ensuring that people can access care when and where they need it. The NHS must embrace new technologies as essential for diagnosing and treating people as quickly as possible, and it must move from being a national sickness service to putting prevention front and centre. Only by doing so can we have an NHS that learns the lessons from the pandemic and ensures that, where mistakes were made in the past, they are learned from and not repeated in future pandemics.
That is the kind of thing we need to do as a Parliament, and it is the kind of thing that I hope the next Labour Government will be able to do. Until then, we will fully support the current Government in making sure the message is sent out loudly and clearly that the covid-19 vaccine is the best way of protecting yourself and your loved ones from what is still a terrible virus.

Maria Caulfield: Apologies for my croaky voice. I will try to respond to all the points that I can.
I thank the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) for securing this important debate. As the Opposition have rightly said, it is important that we have the debate in a measured way, because there are strong feelings on all sides. Those who have concerns about vaccines, lockdowns and the way pandemics are managed are right to raise them, but it is also right and proper that people express the view that vaccines protect people and that difficult decisions had to be made. As the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) highlighted, it is much easier to come to different conclusions with hindsight. It is really important that as we go forward, still living with covid, we continue our discussions in a measured debate on all sides. In recent weeks, we have seen the impact of people not being able to speak freely about their concerns regarding the Post Office or the Tavistock centre.
As I said, we have had a number of debates on this issue, including in January, when I acknowledged that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire was correct to say that we have seen excess deaths in recent years. However, excess deaths are not new; they were happening before covid and have happened since then as well. It is important to look at the figures, because the Office for National Statistics indicates that the number of excess deaths has been reducing, year on year, since the high in 2020, when there were 66,740 excess deaths in England. I can only talk about England because  health is obviously devolved and the Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will have their own data. In 2022, that number went down to 37,701, and in 2023, there were just 10,206 excess deaths in England. It is important to remember that every single one of those is a person, a family member, and a loved one, but it may reassure hon. Members greatly, as it does me, that the ONS has reported negative excess deaths for every week so far in 2024.

Andrew Bridgen: After a pandemic, which we have been out of for quite some years, we would expect a deficit in deaths, so why have we not had a deficit for the past two years, in which we have not had the covid pandemic?

Maria Caulfield: The hon. Gentleman may have missed my last sentence before his intervention. I said that the ONS data shows that in every week in 2024 so far, we have had negative excess deaths. That goes specifically to his point.
We are not complacent, though. As I set out in previous debates, when we have seen those rises in excess deaths—and we have seen significant excess deaths—we have looked at that data to see the cause behind it, whether it is the vaccine, covid, or other factors. We have been working so hard, and I am really pleased that we are now starting to see negative excess deaths.
Let me highlight some of the work that we have been doing in looking at those figures. We had an incident of high flu prevalence in 2022, with a peak of 31.8% of flu tests being positive. That is highly likely to be because we locked down the country for two years and people’s immune systems were not used to flu. That is why, last winter, we brought forward our flu vaccine, and extended it the year before to the over 65s; we recognised that people’s immunity to flu and respiratory illnesses was low because we had locked them down. I think that we need to be honest about that. This winter, as a result, we have seen fewer admissions and fewer deaths from flu and respiratory illnesses.
We have also seen challenges with other health conditions, such as diabetes and cardiac disease, for which people would routinely have come forward for checks. Routine treatments and access to appointments are difficult even now, given the backlog of examinations and tests that need to happen. When we looked at this, we saw that last year, the rate of deaths from cardiovascular disease was 2% higher than expected, with there having been more than 2,200 excess deaths.
That is why we are reinvesting in our NHS health check. It was on pause during covid, when people could not get their blood pressure or cholesterol checked and could not go on smoking prevention programmes. We restarted those, and as a result, excess deaths from cardiac disease are starting to fall. We want to use the opportunity to roll out our new digital health checks. We recognise that access to GPs is sometimes difficult, but this roll-out is expected to deliver an additional 1 million checks in the first four years. We also have a £10 million pilot to deliver cardiovascular checks in the workplace. Again, that is about making it as easy as possible for people to get checked. We have our Pharmacy  First roll-out as well. That is all for general health purposes. We know that all these things contributed to excess death rates.
I want to touch on the crux of the matter, which is the covid vaccine; that has come through in all these debates. I was not a Health Minister at the time, so I did not have to make these difficult decisions, but the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton is absolutely right: as the pandemic preparedness Minister, I want the findings of the inquiry. I have to make difficult decisions now about potential future pandemics that may never happen, but could happen tomorrow—we just do not know. The results of the inquiry with regard to lockdowns, face masks and vaccines will all be really useful information, and at the moment, I am not much the wiser on those results.
On module 4, I want to see any evidence about vaccine safety, because that is how we learn. I think we are all singing from the same hymn sheet. We want to do the best, but during the pandemic, when we watched TV footage from around the world, and the media were often pushing us to lock down harder, faster and longer, we had to make difficult decisions without the benefit of hindsight.
I went back to the wards during covid, and I looked after covid patients who were being treated for cancer. We lost many of them, and we lost a number of staff, too. I have seen this from both sides of the fence.

Kieran Mullan: Of all the concerning points that the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) made in his opening speech, particularly abhorrent was the suggestion that people who were not eligible for a ventilator were essentially condemned to death. That is a deeply disturbing thing to say, and it does not reflect my experience. I was privileged to volunteer on the frontline, as the Minister did, and I saw staff battling as best they could to save people, using all the medical treatments available, whatever the patient’s age. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to those staff who worked so hard to save as many lives as they could?

Maria Caulfield: Absolutely, and I thank my hon. Friend for his work during those difficult times. We did not have a vaccine in those days, and we did not know how long covid was going to last. I reassure the relatives who are listening to this debate that we treated every single patient in the best way we could. If they needed a ventilator, we often had to ship them out of hospital to get them to a ventilator, but they got one. If they did not need a ventilator, we treated them. We did not leave people to die, and I reassure relatives who might think that we did that it certainly was not my experience of looking after patients.
It is important to look at the data on covid vaccinations. The Office for National Statistics published data last August showing that people who received a covid-19 vaccination had a lower mortality rate than those who had not been vaccinated. Given that 93.6% of the population has been vaccinated with either one or two doses, or multiple does, it is almost impossible to determine correlation versus causation. Vaccinated people will feature highly in excess death numbers because most people have been vaccinated, which is why we need to go through the data really carefully and not just take the first data at face value.
The covid virus continues to circulate, and we are now living with covid. Some people are still very vulnerable to covid, although the current variant is obviously less severe than the initial variant. We have just had our spring vaccine roll-out, and those who are invited should please go to get their vaccine. We know that it makes a difference to the most vulnerable. Over this winter, after both the flu and covid vaccine roll-outs, we have seen a significant reduction in hospital admissions.

Christopher Chope: When will the immunosuppressed have access to Evusheld? Will it be this week, next week, sometime or never?

Maria Caulfield: That is a clinical decision, but now that we have the omicron variant, the evidence for Evusheld’s effectiveness is not as compelling.
Returning to the crux of the matter, there are risks and benefits to every single medicine when the regulator or NICE is weighing up whether to license or fund a product. If the advice coming to us is that, with omicron, the benefits of Evusheld do not outweigh the risks, we have to take that advice. People are not currently being advised to shield, but I recognise that people are very nervous, particularly when they cannot have the vaccine. We are in constant touch with NICE and the MHRA on this, but we have to respect their decision if it is felt that a product will not benefit patients.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Caulfield: I will give way one more time, as I have only a few minutes left.

Andrew Bridgen: I thank the Minister for giving way. She is very generous.
Using her medical experience, can the Minister explain to the House—I am befuddled by this—how a systemic vaccine injected into the arm, into the blood and creating an antibody response, can stop an infection of the airways and lungs by a respiratory virus? It has never happened, and it did not happen this time either, did it? How can it do that?

Maria Caulfield: That is actually what antibodies do.
I will answer some of the many questions that have been asked in this debate. I reiterate that no medicine or vaccine is completely risk free. Even simple paracetamol has the potential to kill people if it is not taken properly, and people with certain conditions might not be able to take it at all. We have monitoring systems in place. The MHRA, which I know has come under criticism, took a stand when in April 2021, following concerns raised through the yellow card system, it reduced access for the under-30s and then for the under-40s. When concerns are raised, it absolutely takes action. There are now recommendations about the type of vaccine, and about whom we vaccinate, bearing in mind the current evidence.
I have said that no vaccine is 100% safe, which is why we have the vaccine damage payment scheme. I hear concerns about that, and I have met my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) to discuss it. We took the scheme off the Department for Work and Pensions and moved it into the Department of Health and Social Care to speed it up and get claims turned around more quickly. We have had more than  4,000 claims, 170 of which have been awarded. Roughly speaking, the majority of claims are decided on within six months, and the vast majority are decided on within 12 months. Of course, we want to speed up on those. We recognise the time limit of three years, which is why we are working as hard as we can to get through as many claims as possible, so that if people have been affected by the covid vaccine, they get some help and support through that funding.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) raised the issue of research. We are absolutely researching the issue of covid-19 vaccines—not just future types of vaccines, but their safety. There is £110 million from the National Institute for Health and Care Research going specifically into covid-19 vaccine safety, and I encourage all Members to keep an eye on that as the evidence comes forward.
I have to give the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire a few minutes to reply, so I will just say that we take this issue extremely seriously. I know that as a Minister, I will be responsible—

Danny Kruger: Will the Minister give way?

Maria Caulfield: I will not, as I have to let the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire respond. We take this issue very seriously. I have been as open and transparent as I can be. If there are concerns, we will always look into them, but there is no doubt that covid vaccines save lives. There is no doubt that some people have experienced harm from them—we acknowledge that, and we want to help and support people who have been affected—but the vaccines did get us out of the pandemic and we need to be mindful of that as well.

Andrew Bridgen: With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, let me thank all the hon. Members who have taken part in a debate that has been robust, as it should be, given the gravity of the issue. I wish this debate were not needed; I wish the experimental covid-19 vaccines were safe and effective, but they are not. The longer we go on not admitting the problem, the bigger the problem that will come, and the greater the harm that will continue to be caused. Those in this House can continue to deny that the vaccines are causing harm and deaths, and the legacy media can continue to censor all reports of vaccine harms and excess deaths, but the people know, in increasing numbers, because they are the ones who are losing their loved ones and relatives. I urge the Government: release the control-level data, and let us sort this out once and for all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the covid-19 pandemic response and trends in excess deaths; and calls on the Covid-19 Inquiry to move onto its module four investigation into vaccines and therapeutics as soon as possible.

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Rachel Hopkins: I wish to present a petition on behalf of those infected and affected by the contaminated blood scandal, particularly those in my constituency. I commend all campaigners across the  country and in my constituency, including, of course, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson). Two victims of this scandal are dying every week. We voted in December to establish a body to pay compensation, as an amendment to the Victims and Prisoners Bill, and we still need to see action. Justice delayed is justice denied.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Luton South,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002949]

New Build Homes Standards: North Yorkshire

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Robert Largan.)

Andrew Jones: May I start by thanking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, through you, Mr Speaker for granting me this debate? I value the opportunity to raise issues during this Adjournment debate. Perhaps no one values that more than the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is usually a fixture at these moments, but has sent his apologies for not being here today.
I have mentioned the new housing developments and estates being built across Harrogate and Knaresborough in the House before. Indeed, I have been running a “fair deal for new estates” campaign, the essence of which is to ensure new estates are finished in a timely way. Within “fair deal” I mean both the length of time involved and the quality of work by house builders. The campaign has been running for over a year. It started when residents in new build properties came to me to seek support for the problems they were having with their new homes. I was, of course, extremely happy to help with their cases and take them up on their behalf with house builders. I have made visits to see the issues at first hand, and corresponded and met with house builders.
There are too many individual cases to detail in this debate. We are talking about over 200 cases located across Harrogate, Knaresborough and some surrounding villages, so the issue is not limited to a specific geography. The developments include King’s Croft, Garten Close, Harlow Green, Swincliffe Mews and others. There are a great variety of issues, both in range and severity, but they can be divided into two groups: issues with individual properties and estate-wide issues.
Estate-wide issues cover matters such as drainage, road surfacing, street lighting, street signage and play areas, or simply being a good neighbour during the final build-out of an estate by keeping roads as clean as possible, and making consideration for delivery times and the types of vehicles used. I have had complaints about how long it has been taking to finish estates and how the focus can seem to move on when much of an estate has been sold. One issue that is regularly raised is about drainage for open spaces, play areas or individual homes. I have seen blocked drains, as well as standing water significant enough to reach front doors and threaten to flood individual properties, which is very worrying for residents. Equally, I have seen huge excavations and remedial work from house builders, indicating that they have been taking action and showing how much work is required to put things right.
On issues facing individual properties, we must remember that a new home is not just a financial transaction, but a major step in anyone’s life. It is emotional and exciting, but moving house can also be stressful. However, it should not be the start of a long chain of dealings with the house builder to correct problems. Issues raised with me range from totally inadequate guttering to very patchy fitting of insulation, from window panes separating from their frames to poorly fitted bannisters, and from  walls having to be rebuilt to bathrooms having to be taken out and replacements fitted. That is just a snapshot because the list is long.
I have been dealing with a number of different house building companies, national and local, large and small, including Taylor Wimpey, Avant Homes and Harron Homes. This debate is about speaking up for individuals, but it is possible to draw some themes together because there are some common elements, which I will highlight. The first is to get it right first time. Residents know that there are likely to be some snags when they move into a new build—people are sensible and they are practical. But that is not what I am talking about: in some cases the sheer number and scale of them have simply been wrong. One resident forwarded his list to me, and it was more than 200 items long. Then there is the severity of the problems. I have met residents who have had whole bathrooms taken out and refitted, or who have had to totally move out of their property during remedial work, with all the disruption that that brings. I am thinking of one case where that is especially true because they have a young family.
Another common problem has been the way that customers have been dealt with during this process, which has been a source of deep frustration. Residents have reported challenges contacting customer services. The frequency of staff changes has been cited, which means that been no continuity of understanding of the issues raised. Also cited is the need for house builders to be more proactive in their communications. That basically means getting information out to everyone about what is happening and when—keeping people informed. I have raised this point with house builders and, in all cases, they have recognised that there have been communication problems—no one has attempted to deny it—and, indeed, they have sought to correct them. In some cases this has meant a new customer service helpline for a development, and in other cases it has meant more senior oversight of outstanding issues.
I mentioned at the start of my speech that the time taken to solve problems has been too long. Again, to be fair to all, some cases have been resolved quickly, but I can think of places where some residents have been living for three years that have yet to see a finished road surface or a finished open space. That is simply too long.
When I started this “fair deal for new estates” campaign it was specifically to support constituents in Harrogate, Knaresborough and the surrounding villages, but I have also been contacted by a number colleagues from right across the House who have been experiencing similar problems in their constituencies too. This problem is obviously much more widespread and is perhaps something for the ministerial team to consider.
I am absolutely sure that we need more new housing in this country, but winning the argument for it means that houses are delivered in a way that enhances communities and where the build quality is high. Harrogate, Knaresborough and the surrounding villages are hugely desirable places in which to live. We have a strong economy, quality services, a high quality of life and a powerful sense of community. It is not therefore surprising that the demand and need for housing is high, but this is all about getting it right for residents.
I have been happy to take up cases and urge anyone struggling with issues in their new build to get in touch with me as I will be happy to help them. That is about issue resolution and that is obviously important, but  I also want to ask how we ensure that we do not have issues to resolve in the first place. How do we ensure that we get things right first time?
I have a few requests for my hon. Friend the Minister in his Department’s dealings and conversations with the sector. How is quality monitored? Can the new homes ombudsman play a bigger role? There is a new homes quality code, which details 10 fundamental principles that registered developers have to follow, but what happens if a developer is not registered and if the principles are not followed?
One challenge raised by house builders has been difficulties in getting the skills they need in the workforce. They have experienced a shortage of people with the necessary skills. That is quite a common feature in an economy that has been strong in job creation. Can more be done to develop a supply chain of skills via apprenticeships? I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has strong views about apprenticeships. This important point applies not just to house builders but to their suppliers. I have had several conversations in which supplier failure has been cited, and a change of supplier has led to a problem being resolved.
Looking further ahead, I know that the Government are working on future homes and building standards, particularly around energy efficiency, microgeneration and insulation, and that is positive work. I would be grateful, therefore, if the Minister could update the House. Basically, I want to see more people own their own quality home and experience a happy future when they move in.

Jacob Young: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) for securing this important debate. The Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety has asked me to offer him a meeting to discuss these matters in greater detail.
As a fellow Yorkshireman, born and bred, I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough shares my enormous pride in representing a constituency in God’s own country. I have huge respect for his tireless work over the years to promote the interests of the hard-working people and families of north Yorkshire. His constituency, like mine, is made up of strong communities that are proud of their past and aspirational for their future, which he and I know must be built on a bedrock of good-quality housing—safe, warm, decent, affordable homes that provide the solid foundation that people need to get on in life and unlock their potential.
Good homes hold the key to our plans to level up opportunity across Yorkshire and around the country, while helping our local economies to grow. That is why I am proud to support the Secretary of State and the Minister for Housing, Planning and Building Safety in delivering those homes through our long-term plan for housing, with 2.5 million new homes built in total since 2010, 180,000 of which are in Yorkshire and the Humber.
However, as my hon. Friend rightly said, the standard of some new builds, and the estates that they are part of, are simply not up to scratch. Like him, I have heard of cases where developers are moving on to new projects before the places that they are building are properly  finished, leaving residents to deal with the extensive snagging or to live in limbo on unadopted roads, such as those in the estates that he mentioned. That is not fair, not right, and frankly not on.
While recognising that most new developments across the country are already of a decent standard, constructed by the many good building firms operating nationwide, we are clear that more needs to be done to address homebuyers’ concerns where standards have fallen short. We have been taking action to ensure that happens: reforming building control as part of the biggest changes to the construction sector in a generation; and strengthening warranties to give homebuyers greater protection.
My hon. Friend asked how my Department monitors quality in our work with the sector, and whether the new homes ombudsman will play a bigger role. I am pleased to tell him that quality is at the heart of our plans, from the future homes standards to our work to improve redress with the new homes ombudsman, which once launched will help to drive up quality across the industry. My hon. Friend also asked what happens if a developer is not registered with the new homes quality code. The new homes quality code is voluntary, but through the Building Safety Act 2022 we legislated so that we can bring forward a single code of conduct, which will be statutory. That was also recommended in the recent Competition and Markets Authority report, to which we will soon publish our response.
My hon. Friend asked about the shortage of relevant skills in the workforce and whether apprenticeships can help to address it. As a former apprentice, that subject is close to my heart, as I know it is to his. That is why I am delighted to tell him that we are already working to boost skills training across the industry by fully funding, for young people up to the age of 21, new apprenticeships  working for small businesses, and that we have amended the apprenticeship levy so that small and medium-sized enterprises will have greater opportunities to develop the skills that the industry needs.
My hon. Friend requested an update on future homes and building standards, particularly in relation to energy efficiency. I can tell him that from next year, the future homes standard will ensure that all new homes produce, on average, upwards of 75% less carbon dioxide emissions than those built to the 2013 requirement. Through the work of our new Building Safety Regulator—introduced under the Building Safety Act 2022—we are improving construction standards across the industry.
Let me directly address some of the constituency matters that my hon. Friend raised. Local authorities can use section 106 planning obligations to secure a commitment from developers to provide appropriate facilities for new build projects such as those he mentioned, including play areas, roads and drainage. It is up to developers and local planning authorities to agree matters relating to the timing and funding of delivery, and it is right that local authorities retain such decisions.
In the meantime, we are working with the building industry to ensure that it takes this issue seriously. Ultimately, it is private developers, not the state, that hold the key to raising standards. Only by local and central Government working together with developers can we ensure that new homes being built in Yorkshire and across the country are safe, decent, warm and finished to a high standard, and that buyers in my hon. Friend’s constituency and elsewhere are treated fairly. We must all play our part to ensure that that happens.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.